Contaminated ground beef sold in Maine this month is the latest salmonella 'superbug' to send Americans to hospitals. The meat — which has sickened 16 people — is tainted with one of four strains of salmonella that became resistant to multiple antibiotics as they evolved to survive.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture this year to prohibit the sale of poultry or ground meat containing those four strains of salmonella; the USDA has taken the petition 'under consideration.'
Government regulators and meat processors contend that if meat sold in stores contains the bacteria, proper cooking will destroy the bacteria and make the food safe to eat. Still, hundreds of people were sickened in 2011 because one of the four strains of antibiotic-resistant salmonella was in their meat. -------------- " (Jennifer Brown, The Denver Post)
This is but one of many concerns about food-borne illness that were voiced in 2011. One of the most recent. Jennifer went on to talk about E. coli and campylobacter, also, as well as other related topics. The part that I believe we should concentrate on right now is what can and will be done, if anything, to help reduce the risk of food-borne illness, especially by government regulators and inspectors. Because of budget battles and politics in general I really don't believe very much will be done. In keeping with a new year's theme, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what Marion Nestle is predicting for 2012 along these lines.
"Looking ahead to food politics in 2012
Marion Nestle
Friday, December 30, 2011
Q: What's on the food politics agenda for 2012? Can we expect anything good to happen?
A: By 'good,' I assume you mean actions that make our food system safer and healthier for consumers, farmers, farm workers and the planet.
Ordinarily, I am optimistic about such things. This year? Not so much. The crystal ball is cloudy, but seems to suggest:
Political leaders will avoid or postpone taking action on food issues that threaten corporate interests. Sometimes Congress acts in favor of public health, but 2012 is an election year. Expect calls for corporate freedom to take precedence over those for responsible regulations. Maybe next year.
Something will happen on the farm bill, but what? Last fall's secret draft bill included at least some support for producing and marketing fruits and vegetables, and only minimal cuts to SNAP (food stamps). Once that process failed, Congress must now adopt that draft, start over from scratch or postpone the whole mess until after the election.
SNAP participation will increase, but so will pressure to cut benefits. With the economy depressed, wages low and unemployment high, demands on SNAP keep rising. In 2011, SNAP benefits cost $72 billion, by far the largest farm bill expenditure and a tempting target for budget cutters. While some advocates will be struggling to keep the program's benefits intact, others will try to transform SNAP so it promotes purchases of more healthful foods. Both groups should expect strong opposition.
Childhood obesity will be the flash point for fights about limits on food marketing. The Lancet recently summarized the state of the science on successful obesity interventions: taxes on unhealthy foods and beverages, restrictions on marketing such items, traffic-light front-of-package food labels, and programs to discourage consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and television viewing. Expect the food industry to continue to get Congress to block such measures, as it did with U.S. Department of Agriculture school nutrition standards (hence: pizza counts as a vegetable).
The Federal Trade Commission will postpone release of nutrition standards for marketing to children. Although Congress asked for such standards in the first place - and the standards are entirely voluntary - it just inserted a section in the appropriations bill requiring a cost-benefit analysis before the FTC can release them. Why does the food industry care about voluntary restrictions? Because they might work (see previous prediction).
The Food and Drug Administration will delay issuing front-of-package labeling guidelines as long as it can. The FDA asked the Institute of Medicine for advice about such labels. The institute recommended labels listing only calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and sugars - all nutrients to avoid. Although the institute did not mention traffic-light labels, it did recommend check marks or stars, which come close. The food industry much prefers its own method, Facts Up Front, which emphasizes 'good-for-you' nutrients. It is already using this system. Will the FDA try to turn the institute recommendations into regulations? Maybe later.
The FDA will (still) be playing catch-up on food safety. The FDA got through the 2011 appropriations process with an increase of about $50 million for its inspection needs. This is better than nothing but nowhere near what it needs to carry out its food safety mandates. The FDA currently inspects less than 2 percent of imported food shipments and 5 percent of domestic production facilities. The overwhelming nature of the task requires FDA to set priorities. Small producers think these priorities are misplaced. Is the FDA going after them because they are easier targets than industrial producers whose products have been responsible for some of the more deadly outbreaks? Time will tell.
On the bright side, the food movement will gather even more momentum. While the food industry digs in to fight public health regulations, the food movement will continue to attract support from those willing to promote a healthier and more sustainable food system. Watch for more young people going into farming (see Chronicle staff writer Amanda Gold's Dec. 25 article: sfg.ly/s3aZKW) and more farmers' markets, farm-to-school programs, school meal initiatives, and grassroots community efforts to implement food programs and legislate local reforms. There is plenty of hope for the future in local efforts to improve school meals, reduce childhood obesity, and make healthier food more available and affordable for all.
And on a personal note: In April, University of California Press will publish my co-authored book, 'Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics.' I'm hoping it will inspire more thinking and action on how we can change our food system to one that is better for people and the planet.
Marion Nestle is the author of 'Food Politics' and 'What to Eat,' among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. She blogs at www.foodpolitics.com. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com."
In my opinion, even the largest economy in the world (the U.S.) is not going to do much to reduce the cases of food-borne illness in 2012, and if the U.S. doesn't do much, what chance do the people have in second and third world countries where resources are even more scarce or are being horded for other "official" purposes?
My real point here is that food-borne illness is but one of many food-related topics that represent problems that are not going to go away. Some day enough people will see this situation as the major opportunity that it is (many already do), and work even harder (many behind the scenes to postpone the battles as long as possible) to perfect and present a viable alternative for "feeding" people around the world that is based on new high technology.
The stakes are enormous. Just think about how many trillions of dollars are involved in the global food industry each year as it exists today. Even if the new system will bring in only 50% as much money as traditional methods of producing food and feeding people, it will be the largest new pie for entrepreneurs to divide in the history of mankind.
Is this evolution worth watching? To me, an old Texas A&M agriculture grad, I can't think of anything more exciting or interesting short of the second coming of Christ. We all need "food" and water. Where will your children and grandchildren be getting theirs 20 or 30 years from now? It's real, folks. Stay tuned!
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification
No comments:
Post a Comment