The USDA announced it would leave oversight on GMOs to the companies producing the organisms. D-Keine / E+ / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
Food safety advocacy groups objected to the Trump administration's latest assault on the country's agricultural regulatory framework as the Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced Thursday it would leave oversight on GMOs to the companies producing the organisms.
<p>"There is a need for adequate safeguards and effective regulatory oversight to ensure that there aren't unintended consequences to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/biodiversity">biodiversity</a> from these new technologies," Aviva Glaser, director of agriculture policy at the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement responding the rule, "but unfortunately, USDA's rule falls short of achieving this."</p>
<p>The new "<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/340-secure-rule.pdf" target="_blank">SECURE rule</a>" would allow companies involved in gene editing (GE) to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-agriculture/usda-limits-review-requirements-of-some-biotech-farm-products-idUSKBN22R04P" target="_blank">avoid</a> government oversight if the companies themselves determine the editing involves modifications that could be achieved through traditional breeding. Critics charge that the new rule leaves that determination up to the companies themselves, removing two regulatory checks in one swoop.</p><p>"While some genetically engineered products are safe and beneficial, the federal government needs a regulatory system that tracks product development and ensures safety before products are marketed," said Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) biotechnology project director Gregory Jaffe. "We support science- and risk-based federal oversight of genetically engineered plants to ensure they are safe to humans and the environment before they are released for cultivation or restoration, but today's final regulation does not achieve that result."</p>
<p><a href="https://cspinet.org/news/trump-administration-usda-limits-oversight-genetically-engineered-and-gene-edited-crops" target="_blank">According to</a> the CSPI, the rule change flies in the face of the desires of a broad coalition of interested groups:</p><blockquote>Despite a unified position from environmental groups, consumer organizations, biotech crop developers, and food industry stakeholders imploring USDA to eliminate a provision allowing crop developers to self-determine whether their products are regulated, the Trump administration refused to require developers to even notify the agency of products they believe are exempt under the new regulations.</blockquote>
<p>Center for Food Safety senior attorney Sylvia Wu said in a statement Friday that the USDA was trying to use a needed update to an outdated set of rules to push through yet another industry-friendly policy that could have ramifications for the country's food supply.</p><p>"While revisions to USDA's regulations—first drafted in 1987—are necessary in order to ensure that the regulatory scheme adequately addresses the harms associated with current GE technology, the new regulations finalized by USDA, paradoxically named the SECURE rule, are anything but secure," said Wu.</p><p>"Instead of fixing long-standing deficiencies and strengthening the regulatory system to guarantee proper oversight of new GE technologies and their associated risks, the revised regulations dramatically scale back USDA's regulatory authority, leaving most GMOs unregulated," Wu added.</p><p>Bottom line, said Consumer Federation of America director of food policy Thomas Gremillion, "consumers have a right to know how gene editing is being used to produce the foods they buy in the market."</p><p>"This rule will undermine public confidence in the food supply," Germillion said, "and ultimately set back beneficial uses of this technology."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/05/15/anything-secure-advocates-decry-usda-rule-allowing-big-ag-set-its-own-regulations" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- In This Time of Crisis, We Need to Keep Our Eyes Open - EcoWatch ›
- 6 Ways Trump Is Bad for Food, Health and the Environment ... ›
- 'A Disaster': Critics Blast New GMO Labeling Rule From Trump's USDA ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits for at Least 700,000 People During Pandemic
14 May
Politics
A volunteer carries milk and food to those experiencing food insecurity during the coronavirus stay-at-home order on April 13, 2020 in Ellettsville, Indiana. Jeremy Hogan / Echoes Wire / Barcroft Media / Getty Images
By Jake Johnson
With hunger rising at an alarming rate across the U.S.—particularly among children—as the coronavirus crisis sends unemployment to levels not seen since the Great Depression, the Trump administration this week resumed its effort to strip nutrition benefits from more than a million people by appealing a court ruling that blocked the Agriculture Department from imposing more punitive work requirements.
<p>After <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/trump-food-stamps-delay.html" target="_blank">briefly backing off</a> its push to implement the rule change last month, the USDA on Tuesday<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foodstamps/trumps-usda-fights-court-ruling-protecting-food-benefits-during-pandemic-idUSKBN22P33J" target="_blank"> filed court documents </a>appealing Judge Beryl Howell's <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/16/basic-human-decency-wins-judge-blocks-cruel-its-core-trump-effort-strip-food" target="_blank">stay</a> of the administration's long-sought policy, which would limit states' ability to waive work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).</p><p><span></span>While the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law in March, suspended SNAP work requirements for the duration of the public health emergency, analysts have <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-case-for-boosting-snap-benefits-in-next-major-economic-response-package" target="_blank">warned</a> that the economic crisis and the need for nutrition assistance will persist long after Covid-19 is effectively contained.</p><p>Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) ripped the USDA's appeal in a <a href="https://fudge.house.gov/press-statements/fudge-usda-ignores-need-will-crack-down-on-snap-work-rules-anyway/" target="_blank">statement</a> late Wednesday, saying that if Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and other Trump administration officials "had any decency or compassion, they would abandon this appeal immediately."</p>
<p>"Secretary Perdue and his officials at USDA continue to show their true colors when it comes to our nation's hungry," said Fudge. "The nation's unemployment percentage has seen its worst spike since the Great Depression. Jobless claims are up over 30 million. The lines at food banks have never been longer. And by any reputable account the worst is yet to come.</p><p>"The administration has decided that now—amid the most pervasive need in a century—is a great time to crack down on Americans who rely on food stamps to keep their families from going hungry," Fudge added.</p>
<div id="4e782" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ac931a7b6919ae94801cb37451669e53"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1260705632946196481" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Dems need to run campaign ads on this monstrous cruelty.
@RepMarciaFudge has some text to start with:
https://t.co/6QEDegqOg3</div> — Rebecca Vallas (@Rebecca Vallas)<a href="https://twitter.com/rebeccavallas/statuses/1260705632946196481">1589410620.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>By the Agriculture Department's own estimates, the rule change—which was finalized in December despite the <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/03/flood-comments-shows-public-utterly-repulsed-trump-plan-take-food-stamps-750000" target="_blank">flood of public comments opposing</a> the policy—could strip nutrition assistance from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/04/food-stamps-snap-trump-sonny-perdue" target="_blank">around 700,000 people</a>. Analysts say the actual number <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/coronavirus-food-stamps-trump-administration" target="_blank">would likely be more than a million</a>.</p><p>Throughout the pandemic, the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress have <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/23/lowest-low-mcconnell-and-trump-ripped-blocking-food-assistance-covid-19-package" target="_blank">blocked Democratic efforts</a> to expand SNAP benefits to meet the needs of struggling families. According to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/05/06/new-alarming-research-shows-nearly-1-5-children-us-going-without-enough-food-amid" target="_blank">research</a> published last week by the Hamilton Project, one in three households in the U.S. are food insecure amid the coronavirus crisis.</p><p>"These are households cutting back on portion sizes, having kids skip meals," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/us/politics/coronavirus-hunger-food-stamps.html" target="_blank">said</a> researcher Lauren Bauer. "The numbers are much higher than I expected."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/05/14/monstrous-cruelty-hunger-soars-trump-usda-resumes-effort-take-nutrition-benefits" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- While Exploding Military Spending, Trump Budget Eviscerates ... ›
- States Sue Trump EPA for Suspending Environmental Regulations During Pandemic - EcoWatch ›
- These Renewable Energy Companies Are Feeding Hungry Families - EcoWatch ›
- New FEED Act to Address Food Insecurity With Help From Restaurants - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
USDA Is Removing Safeguards on Food While Everyone Else Is Fighting a Pandemic
19 April
Insights + Opinion
Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call / Getty Images
By Tony Corbo
As the world focuses on the COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact on public health, the Trump Administration has been busy behind the scenes doubling down on its campaign to deregulate Big Ag. At the same time, it is not providing safeguards to food production workers and government inspectors who are being made to work on the frontlines without frontline employee protections.
The USDA Is Playing Fast and Loose With Meat Inspection Lines During the Coronavirus Outbreak
<p>USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is deregulating inspection in some of the largest pork processing facilities by reducing the number of inspectors assigned to the slaughter line. They turn over critical inspection tasks to untrained company employees, and remove the cap on how fast the line can run. FSIS anticipates that 40 hog slaughter facilities will convert to this method, which is being called the New Swine Inspection System (NSIS). Those 40 facilities process over 92% of all pork in the U.S. Some of the big names in pork processing are pushing for this, such as JBS, Tyson, Smithfield, Clemens, and Quality Pork Processors. In one plant that has been experimenting with the new system, FSIS inspectors have 2.6 seconds to determine whether the company employees have performed their tasks properly. As a consequence, it is not uncommon for hog carcasses to be contaminated with feces, hair, toe nails, and bile to be greenlit for processing into bacon, pork chops, hot dogs, sausage, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inspectors-warn-unsafe-pork-could-make-its-way-consumers-under-n1097676" target="_blank">and other pork products</a>.</p><p>Three lawsuits to challenge NSIS have been filed by unions representing the plant workers, animal welfare groups, and food safety advocates, including Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety. FSIS hid critical information from the public when it first proposed the frighteningly minimal system. Food & Water Watch was forced to file separate litigation to obtain crucial, undisclosed information which revealed that NSIS would lead to more contaminated pork entering commerce and could lead to an animal disease — to <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/new-data-shows-new-swine-inspection-system-so-dangerous-it-could-spur-another-zoonotic-pandemic" target="_blank">ravage hog herds and/or be transmitted to humans</a>. Plants that wanted to convert to NSIS had until March 30, 2020 to state their intentions. FSIS still refuses to disclose the names of those plants, leaving consumers in the dark.</p>Meat Companies Are Being Given Almost Full Control Over Their Own Inspection Standards
<p>While it is struggling to keep poultry plants properly staffed with inspectors during the pandemic, FSIS has stepped up its approvals of regulatory waivers to chicken slaughter plants that want to increase their maximum line speeds from 140 birds per minute to 175 birds per minute. In the first two weeks of April, FSIS approved 11 such waivers for plants operated by Foster Farms, Tyson Foods (4 plants), and Wayne Farms (6 plants). These plants have all converted to the so-called New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) in which the number of government inspectors assigned to the slaughter line is reduced and many of their tasks are turned over to company employees. Under traditional inspection, each FSIS inspector is assigned 35 birds per minute to inspect. Under NPIS, there is only one FSIS inspector stationed at the end of the slaughter line. When a plant is granted a line speed waiver, that sole FSIS inspector is expected to examine 3 birds every second — or 175 birds per minute. The waiver process that FSIS uses is done in secret; it is not open to public scrutiny until the FSIS reveals that it has granted the waiver. Since taking office, the Trump USDA has approved 28 new waivers under this process, <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/188bf583-45c9-4837-9205-37e0eb1ba243/waiver_table.pdf?MOD=AJPERES" target="_blank">mostly to the big players in the poultry industry.</a></p><p>Inviting everyone to the new game, FSIS is recruiting cattle slaughter plants to deregulate inspection, too. In late March, <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/usda-prioritizes-privatizing-beef-slaughter-inspection-over-food-safety-during-pandemic" target="_blank">FSIS approved a waiver</a> through its secret process for a Tyson beef plant in Holcomb, Kansas that slaughters up to 6000 head of cattle per day. The waiver is designed to reduce the number of government inspectors assigned to its slaughter line, increasing its line speed. FSIS has not revealed how fast the line will run with this waiver or how many fewer government inspectors will be on the slaughter line, but we know it won't result in safety for consumers.</p>Meat Inspection Deregulation Threatens Food Safety
<p>All of these deregulatory moves are designed to increase production; they are not being done to improve food safety. They will contribute to expanding the industrial agriculture model by promoting the growth of factory farms. It's even more disconcerting that it is occurring in the middle of a national crisis.</p><p>As the Trump Administration has stepped on the accelerator to deregulate in recent weeks, there are numerous examples around the country of meat and poultry plants being impacted by the spread of the COVID-19 virus. While the news has been focused on urban areas racked by the pandemic, hot spots have also emerged in rural communities in Colorado, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska where meatpacking plant workers have contracted the virus while being forced to work, forcing some plants to curtail or cease operations temporarily. </p><p>In those instances where meatpackers have insisted on continuing with business-as-usual even when their employees have gotten sick, it has pitted public health officials against company officials and <a href="https://www.keloland.com/video/sioux-falls-mayor-tenhaken-describes-call-with-leaders-of-smithfield-as-heated-as-covid-19-case-numbers-go-up/4572959/#" target="_blank">even USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue</a>.</p><p>Plant workers and even government inspectors who work at these plants have not been given adequate personal protective equipment. It is virtually impossible to practice social distancing in these plants because plant workers and government inspectors work side-by-side in slaughter and processing facilities. When workers protested these conditions, Vice President Mike Pence had the audacity to urge the workers to continue "to show up and do [their] jobs."</p>Urge Officials to Take Action Against Increased Line Speeds
<p>Increased line speeds only create more opportunities for contamination and sickness. It's unnecessary and it's putting our health at risk.</p><p><a href="https://secure.foodandwaterwatch.org/act/demand-congress-stop-allowing-usda-food-safety-waivers?ms=fwws_wb_04162020_usda-removing-safeguards&oms=fwws_wb_04162020_usda-removing-safeguards" target="_blank">Tell Congress</a> to stop allowing USDA food safety waivers. This is no time to gamble with Americans' health.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
We shouldn't have to be toxicologists to be able to grab something at the grocery store that doesn't contain dangerous ingredients. Daniel Orth / Flickr
By Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner
A major but largely glossed over report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental and public health nonprofit based in Washington, DC, shows that thousands of untested chemicals (an estimated 2,000, to be exact) are found in conventional packaged foods purchasable in U.S. supermarkets. And yes, all of them are legal.
<p>The extensive collection of permissible additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens, such as synthetic sodium nitrate, found in processed meats and considered <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/" target="_blank">probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization</a>, and butylated hydroxyanisole, also known as BHA, a chemical <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/butylated-hydroxyanisole" target="_blank">listed as a cancer-causing chemical by the state of California</a> and found in commonplace items like frozen pepperoni pizza. Other unappealing <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemicals</a> are commonly found in our food packaging, such as <a href="https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/the-link-between-fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-and-climate-change" target="_blank">polypropylene</a>, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/114670/download" target="_blank">sulfuric acid</a> and <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/221205.php" target="_blank">bisphenol A</a> — all of which can have impacts on human health and the environment.</p><p>How much should consumers panic before their next supermarket trip? "It really depends on what level of risk consumers are comfortable with," said Dawn Undurraga, a nutritionist at EWG and co-author of the study. "The more we learn about what is in conventional foods, the more evidence for concern we accumulate." Independent laboratory tests commissioned by EWG, for example, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/" target="_blank">found glyphosate</a>, a probable carcinogen, in every sample of conventional oats tested.</p><p>The fact that dangerous chemicals are legal for use in our food is a major public health concern that goes largely unrecognized by the U.S. government. "Unfortunately, our current policy on food additives was written in 1958 and has been completely co-opted by food and chemical companies," Undurraga said. "Additives that are deemed 'Generally Recognized as Safe,' or GRAS, by a food or chemical company or trade association are exempt from the food additive petition process where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews the safety of the additive."</p><p>Originally, this GRAS exemption was created to cover ingredients widely known to be safe, like vinegar, but with advancements in food science, the provision has been applied to thousands of chemicals. As a result, questionable substances have been allowed into a host of conventional foods. In 2017, EWG joined several other public health groups to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/groups-sue-fda-protect-food-safety" target="_blank">file a lawsuit against the FDA</a> in an effort to eliminate the GRAS loophole.</p><p>"Rather than close the loophole, the FDA has instead allowed companies to voluntarily notify the agency about food chemicals and to allow companies to summarize the industry science supporting their conclusions," reads the EWG study, elucidating that many scientists who conduct these reviews have been paid by the industry. Plus, the FDA does not subsequently review underlying biological and chemical data, leaving consumers to literally do the dirty work. The FDA did not respond to Truthout's request for comment.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjA5MDYwMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMjg2NDk3OX0.27AC_OHg9zXWMnTHONmC5hyCVproJI-PEqmUDcYb1s4/img.jpg?width=980" id="5a8bc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3595b4013b0345ed45097b6da7065203" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
An extensive collection of permissible food additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens. Pixabay
<p>"Consumers shouldn't have to be toxicologists to be able to grab something at the grocery store that doesn't contain questionable or dangerous ingredients," Undurraga said. Even so, toxicology literacy won't help in the frozen food aisle. According to Undurraga, there are absolutely no defining signs on food packaging to indicate that any of the 2,000 synthetic chemicals approved for use in food are present in that specific item.</p><p>In fact, the only way to minimize exposure to these chemicals is to purchase certified <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/organic">organic</a> packaged foods and look at <a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodscores" target="_blank">EWG's Food Scores</a>, which measure nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 80,000 common foods, from frozen vegetables and baby food to packaged nuts, berries and grains across hundreds of popular brands; and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives" target="_blank">EWG's Dirty Dozen List of Food Additives</a>, which ranks the worst food additives common in U.S. supermarket food and where you'll likely encounter them, like potassium bromate in packaged loaves of bread and propylparaben in packaged tortillas and muffins.</p><p>If additives don't have you worried enough about what we're legally permitted to consume, know that pesticides, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498903" target="_blank">found to be carcinogenic</a> and also severely damaging to the environment, are still more than prevalent alongside the packaged food chemicals at your grocery store. Every year, EWG reviews the U.S. Department of Agriculture's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> residue tests on conventional produce.</p><p>"Last year, nearly 70 percent of conventionally grown produce was contaminated with pesticide residues," says Undurraga. "This is especially concerning for pregnant women and small children."</p><p>Sure, organic packaged food and organic produce are typically more expensive than their conventional counterparts, but you're paying for more rigorous additive standards and investing in your long-term health and the health of the environment. Currently, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/report-organic-packaged-foods-only-clean-option-consumers" target="_blank">fewer than 40</a> synthetic ingredients are permitted in organic packaged foods — and this is only after each chemical has been reviewed by both independent and government experts. And yet <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/organic-packaged-food-sales-growth-hits-adolescence/" target="_blank">only around 3 percent of packaged food</a> sold in the U.S. is organic. Perhaps this is because people who shop organic are not interested in pre-packaged meals. More likely, it's because the dangers of conventional packaged food are not well-known.</p><p>Those who want to plan their supermarket trips with a budget in mind can look to EWG's shopper's guide to know what to prioritize in their carts. Beyond opting for organic packaged goods when going the pre-made route, consumers can elect to buy organic versions of fruits and vegetables whose conventional counterparts have made EWG's "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php" target="_blank">Dirty Dozen</a>" list, which calls out those conventionally grown items found with the most pesticide residue: strawberries, spinach, kale, nectarines, apples, grapes, peaches, cherries, pears, tomatoes, celery and potatoes.</p><p>On the flip side, consumers can opt for conventional versions of the produce items that are listed on EWG's "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php" target="_blank">Clean Fifteen</a>" — those with relatively little pesticide residue: avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, frozen sweet peas, onions, papayas, eggplants, asparagus, kiwis, cabbages, cauliflower, cantaloupes, broccoli, mushrooms and honeydew melons.</p><p>Though it's unlikely Americans are going to stop buying conventional packaged food in the near future (or ever), pressure on the government to make packaged food actually safe to eat is necessary to enact change. And with so little information readily available about what we're actually eating when these chemicals aren't disclosed, keeping up with research by independent groups like the EWG remains imperative to educate consumers.</p><p>Combining their research and policy platform, EWG has launched <a href="https://act.ewg.org/onlineactions/qAZe2J99MkSq_8OXk_Bzxg2?sourceid=1016634&ms=WEB_ACTION_2019_CerealVideo_GlyphCorpAction&_ga=2.6167543.537610687.1551104638-329641234.1547048772&_gac=1.122792313.1549296822.CjwKCAiA4t_iBRApEiwAn-vt-7BGsmS1zlwZfyUG3WB7uVeO_TWc5odEkTvwNjol8gNR_NLieT97lRoCn-AQAvD_BwE" target="_blank">a petition</a> to encourage food companies like General Mills, Quaker and Kellogg's to remove <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a>-linked <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate">glyphosate</a> from our food. And that's just the beginning. Other consumer safety advocates, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/10/31/without-a-food-safety-overhaul-for-additives-the-innovative-food-craze-could-spiral-out-of-control/" target="_blank">including the Environmental Defense Fund</a> and the Center for Food Safety, both represented by Earthjustice, have challenged the FDA's GRAS interpretation in court earlier this year.</p><p>Ignorance may bring peace of mind to grocery shoppers, but as more information about the hazards in our daily food purchases comes to light, it's likely we'll see more consumer pushback against dangerous practices that have become the norm.</p>
<p class=""><em></em></p><p><em>Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner is a writer based in New York. She is a writing fellow at <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute. She's written for <em>Bon Appetit</em>, <em>Food & Wine</em>, <em>Travel & Leisure</em>, <em>Conde Nast Traveler</em>, <em>Glamour</em>, <em>AlterNet</em>, <em>Cosmopolitan</em>, <em>Teen Vogue</em>, <em>Architectural Digest</em>, <em>Them</em> and other publications. She holds a bachelor's degree in creative writing from Columbia University and is also at work on a forthcoming novel. Follow her on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/melissabethk" target="_blank">@melissabethk</a>.</em></p><p><em><span></span>This article first appeared on <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/there-are-2000-untested-chemicals-in-packaged-foods-and-its-legal/" target="_blank">Truthout</a> and was produced in partnership with <a href="https://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- These Toxic Chemicals in Food Packaging Are Getting Into Your ... ›
- Organic Foods Are the Only 'Clean' Packaged Option for Consumers ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Former astronaut Buzz Aldrin shakes President Trump's hand as Vice President Mike Pence watches on July 19 in DC.
SHEALAH CRAIGHEAD
By Elliott Negin
On July 19, President Trump hosted Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins and their families, along with the family of their deceased colleague Neil Armstrong, at a White House event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first manned landing on the moon.
<p>"Tomorrow will represent 50 years from the time we planted a beautiful American flag on the moon," Trump <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-trump-meets-with-apollo-11-astronauts-buzz-aldrin-and-michael-collins" target="_blank">said</a>. "And that was an achievement, possibly one of the great, considered one of the great achievements ever."</p><p>Trump's fractured syntax notwithstanding, the Apollo program was indeed a stunning triumph of federal science, <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA" target="_blank">involving</a> more than 34,000 National Aeronautics and Space Administration employees and 375,000 industry and university contractors. It was one of many spectacular <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dont-take-federal-science_b_4146736" target="_blank">achievements</a> by federal and federally funded scientists over the last half-century, such as the creation of the internet, fiber optics and magnetic resonance imaging technology, not to mention the role those scientists played in providing the technical underpinning for health and environmental <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/environmental-protections-save-lives-create-jobs-and_b_58dc4a1ee4b04ba4a5e25098" target="_blank">standards</a> that save lives and protect critical ecosystems and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife" rel="noopener noreferrer">wildlife</a> habitats.</p><p>Trump's lauding of the Apollo 11 mission rang a particularly discordant note given the lengths to which his administration has gone to destroy federal science by censoring scientific findings, gagging agency scientists and fostering a hostile working environment. Since taking office, the administration has launched more than <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/attacks-on-science" target="_blank">100 attacks on science</a>, according to my organization, the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> — more than the George W. Bush administration <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/abuses-science-case-studies" target="_blank">amassed</a> over its two four-year terms.</p><p>Just a day before Trump's Apollo photo op, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/climate/epa-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-ban.html" target="_blank">announced it would reject</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17116700" target="_blank">scientific evidence</a> and the recommendation of its own staff scientists by not banning <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" target="_self">chlorpyrifos</a>, the widely used agricultural pesticide shown to hamper childhood brain development. It was the agency's second scientifically indefensible chemical-related decision of the year. In April, it overruled <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/815-e-p-a-memos-on-asbestos/12c87a96be998db10048/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">the advice</a> of its own scientists who urged the agency to follow the example of <a href="https://tinyurl.com/y5x2k32p" target="_blank">55 other countries</a> in completely banning <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a>, a known carcinogen.</p>
Sidelining Science
<div id="a0046" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KTL07A1576661585"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1164145122381950977" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">“By allowing chlorpyrifos to stay in our fruits and vegetables, Trump’s @EPA is breaking the law and neglecting the… https://t.co/DCZpzQKdi9</div> — On Capitol Hill (@On Capitol Hill)<a href="https://twitter.com/EarthjusticeDC/statuses/1164145122381950977">1566388800.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Today's EPA offers a stark example of the Trump administration's crusade to dismantle science-based agencies. Nearly 1,600 employees <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-a-shrinking-epa-trump-delivers-on-his-promise-to-cut-government/2018/09/08/6b058f9e-b143-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.580c7cd37b13" target="_blank">left the EPA</a> during the first year and a half of the EPA administration, while only 400 were hired, according to data obtained by The Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request. Of 1,600 employees <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-workers-trump-administration-2603730765.html">who left</a>, at least 260 were scientists, 185 were "environmental protection specialists" and 106 were engineers. The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget" target="_blank">total number of employees</a> at the agency today — 14,172 — is the lowest in 30 years.<br></p><p>Besides chopping staff, the EPA has dramatically reduced the role of outside science advisers. Last fall, EPA Administrator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler">Andrew Wheeler</a>, a former coal industry lobbyist, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/climate/epa-disbands-pollution-science-panel.html" target="_blank">disbanded</a> a 20-member scientific advisory committee on particulate matter, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060102455" target="_blank">failed</a> to convene a similar panel on ozone, and <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060102455" target="_blank">packed</a> a seven-member advisory committee on air quality standards with industry-friendly participants.</p><p>The EPA is not the only agency pushing scientists out the door. The same day the EPA made its chlorpyrifos announcement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/07/18/many-usda-workers-quit-research-agencies-move-kansas-city-brain-drain-we-all-feared/?utm_term=.c549e94ec861" target="_blank">announced</a> that nearly two-thirds of 395 Washington, D.C.-based employees in its Economic Research Service, which provides analyses on a range of issues, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which oversees $1.7 billion in scientific funding, will quit rather than relocate to Kansas City.</p><p>The department's dubious rationale for moving the Research Service and National Institute is placing researchers closer to farmers and <a href="https://www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/Report-MovingUSDAResearchersWillCostTaxpayers-AAEAReport2019june19final.docx.pdf" target="_blank">cutting costs</a>, but its ulterior motive is to hollow out their staffs, hindering their ability to carry out their missions. Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, acknowledged as much during a <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?463060-1/mick-mulvaney-addresses-south-carolina-republican-party-gala&start=2412" target="_blank">speech</a> he gave at an Aug. 2 Republican fundraiser in South Carolina.</p><p>"You've heard about 'drain the swamp.' What you probably haven't heard is what we are actually doing," he said. "I don't know if you saw the news the other day, but the USDA just tried to move, or did move, two offices out of Washington, D.C…. Guess what happened? More than half the people quit…. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government, and do what we haven't been able to do for a long time."</p>Capitol Hill Science Defenders
<p>Some members of Congress are fighting back. Late last month, for example, the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress — a temporary committee with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans — <a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/modernizing-congress/2019/07/house-modernization-committee-recommends-bringing-back-office-of-technology-assessment/" target="_blank">unanimously approved</a> a recommendation to resurrect the Office of Technology Assessment, a congressional watchdog agency that then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich <a href="https://ota.fas.org/2012/01/31/gingrich-said-to-decimate-congressional-expertise/" target="_blank">killed</a> in the mid-1990s.</p><p>The select committee's recommendation comes on the heels of a draft House <a href="https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releases-fiscal-year-2020-legislative-branch-funding" target="_blank">spending bill</a> for the 2020 fiscal year that includes $6 million to jumpstart the agency, which provided Congress with <a href="https://ota.fas.org/otareports/" target="_blank">analyses</a> on a range of topics, from acid rain to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a> to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" rel="noopener noreferrer">renewable energy</a>, from 1972 to 1995.</p><p>Meanwhile, House Democrats and Republicans alike voiced their support for protecting federal science during a recent Science, Space and Technology Committee <a href="https://eos.org/articles/hearing-garners-bipartisan-support-for-scientific-integrity" target="_blank">hearing</a> on scientific integrity. <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/scientificintegrity" target="_blank">Two dozen</a> federal agencies have adopted scientific integrity policies since 2010, but they are inconsistent and difficult to enforce, so some members of Congress want to codify protections in a law.</p><p>"Allowing political power or special interests to manipulate or suppress federal science hurts, and hurts all of us," <a href="https://eos.org/articles/hearing-garners-bipartisan-support-for-scientific-integrity" target="_blank">said</a> New York Rep. Paul Tonko at the July 17 hearing. "It leads to dirtier air, unsafe water, toxic products on our shelves, and chemicals in our homes and environment. And it has driven federal inaction in response to the growing climate crisis."</p><p>Earlier this year, Tonko introduced the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1709/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22scientific+integrity+act%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1" target="_blank">Scientific Integrity Act</a>, which would guarantee federal scientists the right to share their findings with the public, ensure the accuracy of government science-related communications, and protect scientific research from political interference.</p><p>Federal science has taken an unprecedented beating during the Trump administration and remains a long way from its glory days half a century ago when it landed men on the moon. Tonko recognizes that protecting scientific integrity is a critical first step to rebuilding American scientific enterprise and that it deserves bipartisan support.</p><p>"Scientific integrity is a longstanding concern that transcends any one party or political administration," Tonko <a href="https://eos.org/articles/hearing-garners-bipartisan-support-for-scientific-integrity" target="_blank">said</a>. "The abuses directed by this president and his top officials have brought a new urgency to the issue, but the fact remains whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the [House] speaker's chair or the Oval Office, we need strong scientific integrity policies."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump's EPA Won't Ban Brain-Damaging Pesticide - EcoWatch ›
- How to Avoid Brain-Damaging Chlorpyrifos in Milk and Produce ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump Administration Buries Government-Funded Studies Showing Dangers of Climate Change
24 June 2019
Politics
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue speaks during a forum April 18, 2018 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong / Getty Images
The Trump administration ratcheted up its open hostility to climate science in a move that may hide essential information from the nation's farmers.
<p>The administration put the kibosh on publicizing work done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) own scientists that carried warnings about the long-term repercussions of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate crisis</a>, according to a report by <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/23/agriculture-department-climate-change-1376413" target="_blank">Politico</a>.</p>
<p>None of the studies were political in nature. In fact, they all went through peer-review and were cleared by the non-partisan Agriculture Research Service, a leading source of scientific findings for farmers and consumers. Furthermore, none of the studies looked at the causes of the climate crisis. Instead, they examined the effects of increases in carbon dioxide, rising temperatures and volatile weather, according to Politico.</p><p>Some of the studies are groundbreaking and essential information for human-health around the world, such as findings that rice loses vitamins in carbon-rich environments — a potentially dire cause of malnutrition for the 600 million people around the globe who consume rice as their main food source. The studies also found that climate change could reduce the nutritional quality of several grasses important to raising cattle, which could affect future beef and dairy supplies. Another study found that climate change could worsen and extend seasonal allergies, as Politico reported.</p><p>Politico found that the USDA not only refused to publicize the studies, but kept them off its own website.</p><p>Of course, the studies landed in the USDA, which is run by Sonny Perdue, who is openly hostile to climate science and denies the climate crisis.</p><p>"Climate change, we're told, is responsible for heavy rains and drought alike. Whether temperatures are unseasonably low or high, global warming is the culprit. Snowstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes have been around since the beginning of time, but now they want us to accept that all of it is the result of climate change," he wrote in the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/common-core-blame-game-sonny-perdue/" target="_blank">National Review</a> in 2014. "It's become a running joke among the public, and liberals have lost all credibility when it comes to climate science because their arguments have become so ridiculous and so obviously disconnected from reality."</p><p>In the rice study, the USDA not only squashed their own press release, but also sought to prevent the agency's research partners from publicizing the findings, according to Politico.</p>
<p>The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Washington who collaborated with scientists in the USDA as well as in Japan, China and Australia. Their findings that, as carbon levels increase, rice will lose protein, minerals and essential vitamins, passed through intensive peer-review.</p><p>Yet, the USDA urged the University of Washington not to publicize the study. The USDA was "adamant that there was not enough data to be able to say what the paper is saying, and that others may question the science," a UW communications director wrote in an email, as Politico reported.</p><p>Researchers argue that the Agriculture Department's maneuvers not only damage its own credibility but also show a nefarious intrusion of politics into science.</p><p>"Why the hell is the U.S., which is ostensibly the leader in science research, ignoring this?" said one USDA scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid the possibility of retaliation, as Politico reported. "It's not like we're working on something that's esoteric … we're working on something that has dire consequences for the entire planet."</p><p>"You can only postpone reality for so long," the researcher added.</p>
Read More
Show Less
O_Lypa / iStock / Getty Images Plus
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors documented 60 percent fewer violations at facilities that use animals in 2018 compared to 2017. The drop, reported by the Washington Post this week and also documented by our researchers here at the Humane Society of the United States, is the latest sign that the federal agency is pulling back from its job of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, which protects animals used by puppy mills, zoos and research labs, among others.
<p>The Post also noted a drop in the number of "critical" or "direct" violations issued by the USDA — serious violations that would trigger faster follow-up by the agency and possible enforcement action. In 2017, inspectors recorded more than 4,000 citations, including 331 marked as critical or direct. In 2018, the number of citations fell below 1,800, including 128 that were critical or direct.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTI0MTk0Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzc0MDI5MH0.uSGWQzu7fWI1n3KsPc1puv1DyMkrVy48AaYsGoy76SY/img.jpg?width=980" id="88055" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a4d667b9c416d06364ccbb8f81d60522" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">The agency now appears to be giving the facilities it inspects more leeway to cover up their deficiencies and their misdeeds. Above, a dog at a USDA-licensed puppy mill.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDA</small></p><p>HSUS researchers have come across instances where inspectors found animals who were clearly injured or emaciated, but did not write up a critical or direct citation or even require a puppy mill owner to take a sick dog to a veterinarian for an examination. For instance, in June last year, a USDA inspector visiting a commercial dog breeding operation in Kokomo, Indiana, came across a female boxer who was nursing a litter of puppies.<br></p><p>The dog's ribs, spine and hip bones were protruding, but the inspector simply allowed the breeder to talk to a veterinarian on the phone, who instructed that the dog be given a different diet. The dog was not examined by a veterinarian in person and no tests were done to check if she was sick due to a non-dietary reason, like an underlying infection or parasite — an omission that could endanger her life and the lives of her puppies.</p><p>This slackening of enforcement commitments is just the latest in a long-running and disturbing saga that has unfolded at the USDA under the current administration. The agency now appears to be turning a blind eye to most violations while giving the facilities it inspects more leeway to cover up their deficiencies and their misdeeds.</p><p>Meanwhile, the public is being largely kept in the dark about what goes on behind closed doors at such facilities. In February of 2017, the agency deleted inspection reports of thousands of these facilities that groups like ours had relied on for years to inform the American public of how businesses treat the animals in their care. We are challenging that decision with a <a href="https://blog.humanesociety.org/2018/03/hsus-sues-usda-failing-release-animal-welfare-records-sunshine-law.html?credit=blog_em_022819_id10436_blog_post_022819_id10436" target="_blank">lawsuit</a>, but to date, the USDA continues to redact breeder names, addresses and license numbers on its public Animal Welfare Act records.</p><p>In April 2018 the USDA announced a pilot program that alerts some facilities about upcoming inspections in advance. This gives some breeders and other regulated facilities time to cover up violations or even hide or destroy sick or injured dogs.</p><p>In May 2018, a new USDA tech note explained facilities can now "self-report" to avoid having certain violations identified in their records, even some critical violations, as long as they follow certain guidelines. That same month, the USDA issued a revised Animal Welfare Inspection Guide that was missing many important elements, such as the long-standing requirement that a facility's written program of veterinary care be signed by an actual veterinarian, and requirements related to identifying suffering animals and taking sick animals to a veterinarian.</p><p>In October last year, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/18/usdas-enforcement-animal-welfare-laws-plummeted-agency-figures-show/?utm_term=.bd1c6201f726" target="_blank">Post reported</a> that the USDA issued only 39 written warnings in the first three quarters of 2018, and had settled only one civil complaint against a puppy mill operator. This was a huge drop from just two years before, when the agency issued 192 warnings and filed civil complaints against 23 licensees.</p><p>To make matters even worse, the recent government shutdown, the longest in American history, resulted in many puppy mills operating without an inspection during the early part of the year.</p><p>A USDA spokesperson admitted to the <em>Post</em> reporter that the agency is backpedaling on enforcement, stating that it is putting more emphasis on "working with" the regulated community instead. But this makes no sense because the USDA's own audits show that this approach has failed in the past. In reality, the lack of enforcement is likely due to the influence of vested interests, including Big Ag groups and breeder collectives, which, under the current administration, have an unprecedented amount of influence on the agency's strategy. It's the fox in the henhouse.</p><p>Ironically, the only class of dealers that the USDA is increasingly cracking down on is animal rescues, especially nonprofit pet rescue transporters that obtain minor fees for moving dogs and cats from overburdened rural shelters to shelters that have more space. In 2018, the USDA <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/breeders/dogs/TechNote-QA-Dog-Activities-Requiring-a-USDA-License-or-Registration_04-16-2018.pdf" target="_blank">updated the interpretation of its rules</a> to require some pet rescues to obtain a license under certain circumstances, even if payment they receive to transport pets is just compensation for vet care or gas money.</p><p>We are keeping an eye on these developments and challenging them whenever possible, but we cannot do it without your help. Please <a href="http://action.humanesociety.org/site/PageServer?pagename=electedOfficials_federal&s_src=blog_em_022819_id10436_blog_post_022819_id10436" target="_blank">contact your U.S. Representatives</a> and ask them to join a member sign-on letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee that will be circulating soon. The letter will shine a spotlight on these problems at the USDA and call for tougher enforcement. Also <a href="https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=7582&s_src=blog_em_022819_id10436_blog_post_022819_id10436" target="_blank">ask your Representatives</a> to support the Welfare of Our Friends (WOOF) Act, H.R. 1002, in Congress. </p><p>This important bill would require the USDA to ensure that pet breeders demonstrate compliance with the Animal Welfare Act before their licenses can be renewed, and it would also prevent puppy mill operators whose licenses have been suspended or revoked from opening a new license in a different name.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- USDA Plans to Side With 'Fake Organic' Egg Producers, Ditch ... ›
- USDA Allows Animal Neglect and Abuse at Poultry Slaughter Plants ... ›
- animal cruelty ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
150,000+ Pounds of Boston Market Meals Recalled After Customers Find Plastic and Glass
25 February 2019
Food
The label on the box of one of the recalled meals. FSIS, USDA
More than 150,000 pounds of Boston Market frozen meals were recalled Saturday after customers complained about finding bits of glass and hard plastic in their frozen, not-ready-to-eat boneless pork rib patties, Newsweek reported.
This is a Class 1 recall, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), meaning it "is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death."
<p>The meals were distributed by Bellisio Foods in Jackson, Ohio, which recalled 173,376 pounds of the impacted meal from retailers around the country and from a Tucson, Arizona Department of Defense (DOD) facility, <a href="https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2019/02/glass-plastic-bits-spur-recall-of-boston-market-meals-from-stores-dod-facility/" target="_blank">Food Safety News reported</a>.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="6b2d7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="XFUJ7V1576664078"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1099395002638221313" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Recall: Bellisio Foods Recalls Boneless Pork Rib Frozen Entrée Products Due to Possible Foreign Matter Contamina... https://t.co/HXdoeG2VOL</div> — USDA Food Safety (@USDA Food Safety)<a href="https://twitter.com/USDAFoodSafety/statuses/1099395002638221313">1550951169.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>"[USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)] was notified on Feb. 22, 2019," the FSIS recall notice read, according to Food Safety News. "There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions or injuries due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider."<br></p><p>Bellisio Foods told FSIS that the meals were produced between Dec 7, 2018 and Feb. 15. Here are some details of the recalled items for customers to look out for:</p><ol class="ee-ol"><li>The dinners have best-by dates ranging from December 2019 to February 2020. </li><li>They are in 14 ounce cardboard boxes with the official title "BOSTON MARKET Home Style Meals BONELESS PORK RIB SHAPED PATTY WITH BBQ SAUCE & MASHED POTATOES." </li><li>All the dinners are printed with USDA establishment code "EST. 18297"</li></ol><p>"FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase," FSIS advised, according to Food Safety News.</p><p>Customers should specifically check their freezers for the following sell-by dates and lot codes, Food Safety News said:</p><blockquote>"BEST BY" date of 12/07/2019 with the lot code 8341; <br>"BEST BY" date of 01/04/2020 with the lot code 9004;<br>"BEST BY" date of 01/24/2020 with the lot code 9024; or <br>"BEST BY" date of 02/15/2020 with the lot code 9046.</blockquote><p>FSIS does not yet have a list of all the stores to which the recalled products were shipped. It also does not know if the DOD facility shipped them on to other locations. </p><p>Consumer affairs supervisor for Bellisio Foods Krista Cummings is fielding any questions at 855-871-9977.</p>Last year, there were 28 <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_blank">food</a> recalls in the U.S. due to foreign matter contamination, almost half of which were due to plastic, <a href="https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/enewsletter/a-look-back-at-2018-food-recalls-outbreaks/" target="_blank">Food Safety Magazine found</a>.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="00eaa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="VXGTPU1576664078"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1068988984339193856" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Why doesn't @realDonaldTrump and @GOP care about our food safety?: Lettuce Recall Is a Wake Up Call for Food Safety https://t.co/bR4fntqhOM</div> — Dana Ivey (@Dana Ivey)<a href="https://twitter.com/hekasia/statuses/1068988984339193856">1543701809.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Don't eat Tyson's panko chicken nuggets. USDA
All those chickens! Every time we get these massive meat recalls I think of the poor animals that died for no reason.
This month, two of the nation's largest chicken companies, Tyson and Perdue, have together pulled more than 120,000 pounds of nugget products from shelves and freezers.
<p>
Tyson Foods is recalling approximately 36,420 pounds of chicken nugget products because they may be contaminated with rubber, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-009-2019-release" target="_blank">announced</a> Tuesday.</p><p>Customers complained after they found pieces of "soft, blue rubber" inside, the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/50944df48feb4855a4ac781398c266a6" target="_blank">Associated Press</a> reported. Apparently, the rubber came from a piece of equipment that got pinched and made its way into the nugget blend, a Tyson representative explained to the AP, adding that the company has placed measures to prevent another such snafu.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="de74a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="IOMM0P1576683768"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1090631689783701504" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Tyson Foods is recalling more than 36,000 pounds of chicken nuggets because they may be contaminated with rubber.… https://t.co/TFyz6yLq2H</div> — AJ+ (@AJ+)<a href="https://twitter.com/ajplus/statuses/1090631689783701504">1548861832.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>Specifically, Tyson's recall applies to 5-pound packages of white meat panko chicken nuggets produced on Nov. 26, 2018, the notice said. They have a "BEST IF USED BY" date of Nov. 26, 2019 and a case code of 3308SDL03 and bear establishment number "P-13556" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These plastic-wrapped packs were shipped to retail locations nationwide. <br></p><p>Tyson's recall came not long after Perdue Foods issued two back-to-back recalls of its own chicken nugget products earlier this month. </p><p>Perdue recalled 16,011 pounds of "Fun Shapes Chicken Breast Nuggets" due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the USDA <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-008-2019-release" target="_blank">announced</a> Monday. The dinosaur-shaped products contain milk, a known allergen, which is not declared on the product label. </p><p><span></span>A week before that, Perdue also <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-002-2019-release/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOINAg3MDC2dDbz83RzdDDz9jN3CLPzcDQ38zfQLsh0VAWsFoBU!/?uri=nm:oid:Z6_0Q0619C0JOFAF0IN3FV8NG10O6" target="_blank">recalled</a> 68,244 pounds of its "Simply Smart Organics Gluten Free Chicken Breast Nuggets" due to possible contamination with pieces of wood.</p><p>All together, Tyson's potentially rubber-filled nuggets (36,420 pounds), plus Perdue's undeclared-allergen nuggets (16,011 pounds) and its potentially wood-filled nuggets (68,244 pounds) makes a combined total of 120,675 pounds of recalled chicken products. </p><p>Let's do some math. Say the <a href="https://www.theatlas.com/charts/ryt9stE5l" target="_blank">average weight of a broiler chicken</a> is 6 pounds before slaughter. Take away the parts of the chicken we don't eat, plus breading and whatever else is used in nugget mix—oh and wood and rubber scraps—my back-of-the napkin calculations say that's roughly 20,112 chickens that were killed for food that will go uneaten. That figure may be wildly inaccurate but these recalls always deal in pounds instead of the number of lives. </p><p>It's not even the end of January, folks. Anyone else want to extend Veganuary for another month? <br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Congress should address the humane treatment of birds at slaughter, but its failure to do so does not absolve the US Department of Agriculture of its responsibility to act. Dzīvnieku brīvība / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
By Dena Jones
Undercover investigations at federal poultry slaughter plants over the past decade have documented numerous instances of intentional abuse to animals, including throwing birds against walls, burying live birds in piles of dead birds, breaking birds' legs by violently slamming them into shackles and jabbing birds with metal hooks to remove them from their cages.
<p>The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has reviewed <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/temp/FA-AWI-Poultry-loading-transport-holding-incidents.pdf" target="_blank">records</a> supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), revealing evidence of mistreatment of birds destined for slaughter. One especially concerning problem identified by AWI is the suffering and death of large numbers of birds because they were knowingly neglected or abandoned for extended periods at the slaughterhouse or en route to the slaughterhouse. The problem appears to be particularly acute during extreme weather conditions.</p><p>Examples of mistreatment included:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Birds loaded in high temperatures without the use of fans or misters.</li><li>Birds transported in low temperatures without covers on the trucks.</li><li>Birds held at the slaughterhouse without protection from extreme heat or cold.</li><li>Birds held at the slaughterhouses for days without food, water and adequate shelter.</li></ul><p>The USDA has also <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/temp/FA-AWI-Poultry-loading-transport-holding-incidents.pdf" target="_blank">documented repeated mistreatment</a> of birds by some poultry companies, including:</p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Tip Top Poultry in Marietta, Georgia, rejected the advice of USDA inspection personnel to not leave six trucks of birds over the weekend in extreme heat conditions without food or water. Two months later, Tip Top Poultry left three trucks of birds over the weekend—again in extreme heat conditions without food or water and despite being cautioned by USDA personnel not to abandon the birds.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Norbest Turkey in Moroni, Utah, on at least a dozen occasions, held birds for more than 24 hours without food and water, and in some cases, without shelter from inclement weather. In one case, Norbest held birds for 53 hours before slaughter.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Pilgrim's in Mount Pleasant, Texas, transported birds in cold weather without adequate protection on multiple occasions. In one case, this neglect resulted in 3,569 birds dying. In another instance, 9,879 birds died.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Pilgrim's in Natchitoches, Louisiana, reported high dead-on-arrival (DOA) numbers, including one incident where more than 34,000 birds were DOA on a day with a wind chill factor of 19 degrees.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Pilgrim's in Guntersville, Alabama, parked trucks carrying birds in full sun on multiple hot days; in one instance, 2,550 out of 5,250 (49 percent) birds died.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Butterfield Foods Company in Butterfield, Minnesota, reported high DOAs during cold weather, including one instance where 50 percent of the birds froze to death during the trip to the slaughterhouse.</li></ul><p>An USDA inspector <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/temp/FA-AWI-Incident-at-Pilgrims-plant-P17340-on-07252017.pdf" target="_blank">described in detail</a> one particular weather-related incident:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Three trucks … had been parked … on the asphalt parking lot with no protection from the sun and without any source of ventilation or other means of cooling…. We observed a significant increase in heat-related morbidity and mortality, as evidenced by gasping and heavy panting in more than 90 percent of all birds on the trailer. We observed many birds that were staggering around and aimlessly jumping about in the cages, while others were violently flapping their wings and gasping for air via an outstretched neck, in a final futile attempt to cool themselves…. We also observed that numerous birds had already succumbed to heat stress, and that others were somnolent or moribund.<br></p><p>While it seems clear from the records that individual government inspectors care about the welfare of birds at slaughter, even the most well-meaning USDA inspectors can do little when they witness the mistreatment of birds. Their only recourse is to issue a "Memorandum of Interview"—the type of record reviewed by AWI—that, unfortunately, amounts to nothing more than a friendly reminder to the plant to comply with minimum industry guidelines for the handling of birds.<br></p><p>Neglecting or abusing a chicken or a turkey does not result in any fines; there is no slowing or stopping of the slaughter line, and no suspension of operations at a plant for egregious or repeated humane infractions.</p><p>Many of the incidents reviewed by AWI appear to qualify as violations of the animal cruelty statute of the state in which they occurred. In most of these states, the presence of any one of several cited conditions, such as abandoning an animal without providing for the animal's care, failing to supply an animal with sufficient food and water, or failing to provide an animal with adequate shelter constitutes a violation. However, <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/temp/FA-AWI-Letter-to-USDA-on-bird-abandonment-Aug-2018.pdf" target="_blank">despite requests from AWI</a>, the USDA has never recommended to state officials that they investigate an incident of neglect or abandonment as a possible violation of the state's animal cruelty law.</p><p>One is left to wonder why the USDA is not doing more to prevent these incidents. In part, it is because birds, which represent <a href="https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-welfare-animals-meat-egg-dairy-industry.pdf" target="_blank">98 percent</a> of land animals killed for food in the United States, are not covered by the federal <a href="https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/humane-methods-slaughter-act" target="_blank">Humane Methods of Slaughter Act</a>, a law enforced by the USDA and some state departments of agriculture. The USDA has rejected requests to apply the law to poultry, arguing that it can only do so at the direction of Congress.</p><p>Congress should address the humane treatment of birds at slaughter, but its failure to do so does not absolve the USDA of its responsibility to act. Congress has given the USDA the authority to ensure the "wholesomeness" of poultry products. Because mistreatment of live birds negatively affects <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/09/28/05-19378/treatment-of-live-poultry-before-slaughter" target="_blank">meat quality</a>, the USDA has the power to set humane handling requirements without congressional intervention.</p><p>Accordingly, in late 2013, AWI and Farm Sanctuary formally <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/petitions" target="_blank">petitioned the USDA</a> to require, through regulation, good commercial practices (i.e., minimum industry guidelines) for bird handling. After five years—and hundreds of documented cases of animal mistreatment—the USDA has taken no action on the petition.</p><p>The USDA is aware that the poultry industry opposes humane handling requirements, and so far, has been unwilling to act against industry interests—even when doing so would improve poultry product quality and help prevent abuse of the animals being killed for food. Without appropriate action from the USDA, more incidents like the ones described here are guaranteed to occur.</p><p>You can help protect birds at slaughter by making food purchasing decisions that take into account the treatment of animals by the poultry industry. To assist with this, AWI <a href="https://awionline.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/FA-AWI-Welfare-of-Birds-at-Slaughter-Update.pdf" target="_blank">publishes a list</a> of poultry slaughter plants that have received the highest number of records from the USDA for violating good commercial practices for bird handling. You can also <a href="https://awionline.org/action-ealerts/urge-usda-prevent-suffering-billions-birds" target="_blank">send a message to the USDA</a>, asking the agency to change its regulations and policies to prevent neglect and abuse of birds during transport and at slaughter.</p><p><em>Dena Jones is the director of the Farm Animal Program for the <a href="https://awionline.org/" target="_blank">Animal Welfare Institute</a> in Washington, DC.</em></p><p><em>This article was produced by <a href="http://independentmediainstitute.org/earth-food-life/" target="_blank">Earth | Food | Life</a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute, and was originally published by <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/usda-allows-animal-neglect-and-abuse-at-poultry-slaughter-plants/" target="_blank">Truthout</a></em><em>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The USDA's approved "BE" symbol.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Thursday announced its long-awaited rule on the labeling of foods containing genetically engineered, or GMO, ingredients. Just don't expect the letters GMO to appear on these products.
Under the new "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard," such items will feature the term "bioengineered" or BE foods.
<p>
From Jan. 1, 2022, food companies will have four options to make this disclosure, according to the <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/resources/industry-fact-sheet-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard" target="_blank">USDA's fact sheet</a>:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>On-package text, e.g. "Bioengineered Food," or "Contains a Bioengineered Food Ingredient."<br></li>
<li><span></span>Electronic or digital disclosure—must include instructions to "Scan here for more food information" or similar language, and include a phone number<br></li>
<li>Text message disclosure<br><br> </li>
<li>Or a USDA-approved symbol:<br><br> </li>
<span></span>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTAyMzM1OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODA5NjU0NH0.QAUjb9Z2zJlRcRmi7xJlj6EiCAk-LfE0nElXAGelIt0/img.jpg?width=980" id="1a212" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6ec8a79b77251b2c60b448c583a9eef8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDA</small>
</p>
</ul><p>After years of a contentious battle that pitted food and chemical giants against state-level GMO mandates, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/president-obama-expected-to-sign-industry-backed-gmo-bill-into-law-1921861535.html">President Obama signed a law</a> in July 2016 that directed the Secretary of Agriculture to come up with a national labeling standard for products that contain genetically modified ingredients.</p><p>
Critics of the new labeling standard say it allows food companies to use QR codes, a website URL or 1-800 numbers for this disclosure rather than a clear, national labeling standard.
</p><p>
"This rule is filled with loopholes that will allow manufacturers to use digital codes and other technology that make GMO disclosure more difficult for consumers than simple on-package labels. Many people don't have access to smartphones needed to scan QR codes, or access to a good signal while shopping," <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a> executive director Wenonah Hauter said in an emailed statement.
</p><p>
In today's <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/20/establishing-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard" target="_blank">announcement</a>, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said the new labeling standard increases the transparency of the nation's food system, and ensures clear information and labeling consistency for consumers about the ingredients in their food.<br>
</p><p>
"The standard also avoids a patchwork state-by-state system that could be confusing to consumers," he added.
</p><p>
But Gregory Jaffe of the <a href="https://cspinet.org/" target="_blank">Center for Science in the Public Interest</a> (CSPI), which advocated for term "genetically engineered" on packaging, <a href="https://cspinet.org/news/final-usda-rule-labeling-bioengineered-foods-may-lead-consumer-confusion-says-cspi-20181220" target="_blank">argued</a> that the new labeling standard could sow confusion as consumers might not be familiar with the term "bioengineered."<br>
</p><p>
Secondly, Jaffe said, the new standard allows an exemption for highly processed ingredients such as sugar and vegetable oils that are chemically indistinguishable from their non-GMO counterparts.
</p><p>"Most studies have shown that consumers expect highly processed ingredients to be labeled and many food manufacturers want to provide that information. CSPI agrees with the decision to disclose highly processed ingredients as 'derived from bioengineering' but disagrees with USDA's decision to not mandate that disclosure," he wrote. <br></p><p>The vast majority of sugar beet, corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered for insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, <a href="https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/11754-usda-issues-gmo-disclosure-rules" target="_blank">Agri-Pulse</a> noted.</p><p><span></span>Representatives for corn, soybean and sugar beet growers approved of the final regulations. "America's corn farmers need a consistent, transparent system to provide consumers with information without stigmatizing important, safe technology," National Corn Growers Association president Lynn Chrisp of Nebraska said, as quoted by Agri-Pulse.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c4dc6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="M2WCBZ1576662595"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1075768892658597900" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🚨 Just announced 🚨 The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard will provide a nationally uniform way to off… https://t.co/skeXN1njou</div> — Dept. of Agriculture (@Dept. of Agriculture)<a href="https://twitter.com/USDA/statuses/1075768892658597900">1545318265.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Fuse / Corbis / Getty Images
The U.S. government expanded a recall of ground beef Tuesday as an outbreak of salmonella has quadrupled to 246 people in 25 states since the first recall was announced in October, NBC 4 New York reported.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) announced that the Arizona-based JBS Tolleson, Inc. was recalling an additional 5,156,076 pounds of raw beef that were packaged between July 26 and Sept. 7. When added to the approximately 6,937,195 pounds originally recalled Oct. 4, it makes for a total of around 12,093,271 pounds recalled by the company.
<p>"FSIS is concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase," the agency warned in the recall announcement.</p><p>The recalled beef has the label "EST. 267" inside its USDA mark of inspection and was sent to stores across the country including Walmarts in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico Nevada and Texas and Sam's Clubs in 26 states. You can find the full list of recalled products <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/a4f60fdc-5155-4253-b1d1-d57893ec8359/Tolleson+labels+12.03.18.pdf?MOD=AJPERES" target="_blank">here</a> and the full list of impacted retailers <a href="https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d198b5f7-e009-4654-8195-5d61009d361f/RC-085-2018-Retail-List.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=d198b5f7-e009-4654-8195-5d61009d361f" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODk2ODkxMy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MTUxMTE1Mn0.6FdDTEvHf6DbJRCiVHlJstTieNJPdHvwMBxlYrlLrdI/img.png?width=980" id="8a8d6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3cd89ff7288a147ad30ab0187d5fa921" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">The label of one of the recalled ground beef products</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDA FSIS</small></p><p>The beef has been linked to an outbreak of Salmonella Newport that first started Aug. 5. The last case reported was on Oct. 16. So far, 59 people have been hospitalized and no one has died, the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/newport-10-18/index.html" target="_blank">Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported</a>.<br></p><p><br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODk2ODkxNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTk5NjAzOH0.Kw_FWrbCHvPnALU3ex6bX6HWGOrDWnIB5PbAb0VfpsE/img.jpg?width=980" id="61368" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4ab73c486236a8d56cbeee2f3dd46aae" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A timeline of Salmonella Newport cases so far</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">CDC</small></p><p>Salmonella usually causes diarrhea, fever and stomach cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. It usually clears up after four to seven days without treatment, but children under five, older adults over 65 and people with weakened immune systems could be more vulnerable.<br></p><p>All of the cases in the current outbreak might not have been reported yet, the CDC explained, because it can take up to two to four weeks for someone to report their illness after getting sick. So far, cases have been reported in 25 states, as this map shows.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODk2ODkxNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzODU1NTQ5N30.oc1n313uPk3GQrThF4kttbISvLCpml2uVZ1-g8AHmJU/img.jpg?width=980" id="73952" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e7429467461fe0b02a123c88fe186345" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">A map of Salmonella Newport cases as of November 15</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">CDC</small></p><p>Officials source outbreaks by interviewing infected people about what <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> they ate the week before. In this case, 90 percent of respondents said they ate ground beef at home.<br></p><p>The CDC further explained the sleuthing that went into uncovering the cause of this particular outbreak: </p><blockquote>Officials in Arizona collected an unopened package of ground beef from an ill person's home. The outbreak strain of <em>Salmonella</em> Newport was identified in the ground beef. Whole genome sequencing showed that the <em>Salmonella </em>identified in the ground beef was closely related genetically to the <em>Salmonella</em> in samples from ill people. The ground beef was one of the products recalled on October 4, 2018.</blockquote><p>The CDC recommends that anyone eating ground meat always cook it or order it cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit and always wash hands and any equipment that came in contact with the raw meat with soap and water.</p><p>"No one should be eating partially cooked or raw meat," FSIS warned.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Meat Producers Issue Massive Recalls after Salmonella, Listeria ... ›
- Nearly 43,000 Pounds of Ground Beef Recalled Over E. Coli Fears - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less