Thursday, February 10, 2011
CONTAMINATED READY-TO-EAT FOODS
One of the consistent arguments of The Safe Food Handbook is that ready-to-eat (RTE) foods are likely to be more risky. This applies to meat products as well as non-meat RTE foods. And it's the same everywhere - not just in the United States and Canada.
Did you notice in the previous blog ("The Food Recall Myth") that almost all of the items on the 2010 6-month list of USDA recalls fell into that category (fried pork loaf, salads, appetizers, sandwiches, potstickers and so on - take a look). In fact, it was a bad year for RTE products, particularly those containing meat or based on meat.
Here's what I found for 2010 as a whole (12 months - but I included only recalls linked to possible contaminants of one kind or another - not those for mislabeling, an undeclared allergen or ingredient): 73% of the recalls by the USDA were for ready-to-eat products. This was up considerably from 2009, where the majority of such food recalls (22 compared to 19) were for uncooked fresh or frozen meat - usually ground beef products.
Why? I bet it's at least partly because we are cooking less and less and eating more and more of the "grab and go" type of foods. Alright, I perfectly sympathize with the woman who wrote in and said that after a day's work, when she was too tired to cook, it was at least a step up from fast food. Agreed. But it's a step down from a 10-15 minute, "frig to plate" fresh-cooked meal.
OK - I'm super fast, but yes, you can make a great though simple dinner for two based on fresh products in that time (complex ones naturally take longer). Of course, another way to do it is what one of my busy but health-conscious friends (who up to recently lived alone) does: she goes to the farmer's market on the weekend and then fresh cooks and freezes dinners for the weekdays ahead. OK, maybe a bit limiting, but certainly less risky.
We live in the real world. Most of us end up compromising on RTE foods, and eat them at least once in a while. But let's try to do it less often. This is a growing eating trend - but not a healthy one.
TSF
Labels:
deli meats,
food recalls,
ready-to-eat food,
RTE food,
USDA
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
THE FOOD RECALL MYTH
I have always wondered how much of the "bad" food recalled by food companies (often under pressure from federal agencies) was actually recovered. So today I did a simple analysis of the past 6 months of the recalls conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Why look at the USDA rather than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Well frankly, because I had their data handy. They helpfully just publicized their closed recall file for 2010 which listed the amount of product reported as recovered. All I did was go back to the original recall notice, and add the amount of product actually recalled in the first place. I only did it for the past 6 months, as it was the same pattern for the previous 6, and the list was getting too long (and, admittedly,the task was boring). By the way, I doubt findings for the FDA would be much different.
Notice the difference between product recalled and actually recovered in all but two cases. So where did this missing recalled food go? I would bet it didn't get lost in transit. The chances are, that we ate it. In many, if not in most cases, food recalls come too late - at least in the United States. And as you can see, too little is recovered.
Here's the list.
-- Raw Pork Paste and Ready-to-Eat Fried Pork Loaf, Dec 8, 2010. Recalled 2,182 lb. Actually recovered, 204 lbs.
-- N.Y. Gourmet Salads Products Dec 2, 2010. Recalled 12 products, (unknown total weight) . Actually recovered, 0 lbs.
-- Appetizer Products (Listeria), Nov 23, 2010. Recalled 57 lbs. Actually recovered, 566 lbs (This is very unusual).
--Spicy Thai Style Pasta Salad (Salmonella), Nov 5, 2010. Recalled, 7,325 lbs. Actually recovered, 2,012 lbs.
--Canned Meat and Poultry Products .Nov 4, 2010. Recalled, 12,086 lbs. Actually recovered, 495 lbs.
--Spicy Vegetable Potstickers .Oct 4, 2010. Recalled 1,608 lbs. Actually recovered, 420 lbs.
--Cured Uncooked Pork Ginger Sausage Sep 24, 2010. Recalled, 29, 893 lbs. Actually recovered, 5,019 lbs.
--Ground Beef Products . Aug 28, 2010. Recalled, 8,500 lbs. Actually recovered, 0 lbs.
--Marketside Grab and Go Sandwiches. Aug 23, 2010. Recalled, 380,000 lbs. Actually recovered, 168,249 lbs.
--Canned Meatball Products Aug 3, 2010. Recalled 147,667 lbs. Actually recovered, 118,892 lbs.
--Chicken Nugget Products . Jul 19, 2010. Recalled, 91,872 lbs. Actually recovered, 33,072 lbs.
--Fully Cooked Turkey Breast. Jul 7, 2010. Recalled, 17.5 lbs. Actually recovered, 17.5 lbs.
--Firehouse Jerky Beef Jerky Products Jul 6, 2010. Recalled, 8,000 lbs. Actually recovered, 2,901 lbs.
-- Beef Stroganoff with Noodles.Jun 30, 2010. Recalled, 600 lbs. Actually recovered, 0 pounds.
My point: Don't rely on food recalls to keep you safe. They won't.
Enjoy!
TSF
Labels:
FDA,
FOOD CONTAMINATION,
food industry,
food recalls,
USDA
Sunday, February 6, 2011
SELLING US SUNNY-SIDE UP EGGS
As both an artist and a food safety book author I feel thoroughly conflicted when it comes to sunny-side up eggs. From an artistic viewpoint, I love the pure simplicity of form of the undercooked egg's yellow mound against the white. Much more attractive than an image of that dull, blurred and flattened well-done fried egg. But from a safety perspective....
The best way to avoid unsafe eggs, is to cook them well. Even if an egg carries a few Salmonella bacteria, they will be killed. No problem. We know that. Of course, that goes for fried eggs as well. Some studies have in fact found that most U.S. cases of food poisoning linked to eggs, have come from eating sunny-side up friend eggs - "The classic American Breakfast" as Land O Lakes calls it (their image is below).
And yes, during the last year, as I was finishing writing the book (which has a chapter on eggs) I became increasingly aware that almost every visual image of a fried egg used by the media is a sunny-side up egg. I am an avid New York Times reader, and while I am impressed with their constant and in-depth coverage of food safety issues, I am horrified that the newspaper is unwittingly promoting what the FDA calls "unsafe eggs."
That goes for some egg producer ads and even the American Egg Board (AEB). Last night I watched a movie I had recorded about a week ago - and guess what, there was an add by the American Egg Board displaying their "Incredible Egg" battle call superimposed over the image of a sunny-side up egg (usually it's a boiled egg). I just checked their website and, with a couple of exceptions, there are plenty of underdone fried eggs there too. These same egg companies, and the AEB are telling us to cook our eggs thoroughly, even if only about one in 10,000 is likely to carry Salmonella. Talk of mixed messages! Go to your frig and take a look at the FDA's Safe Handling Instructions on your egg carton: "To prevent illness from bacteria, keep eggs refrigerated, cook eggs until yolks are firm, and cook foods containing eggs thoroughly."
Visual images are powerful. These visual images we see all over the place are keeping Americans eating sunny-side up eggs. Shame on all those news media and companies who are putting aesthetics above safety!
TSF
The best way to avoid unsafe eggs, is to cook them well. Even if an egg carries a few Salmonella bacteria, they will be killed. No problem. We know that. Of course, that goes for fried eggs as well. Some studies have in fact found that most U.S. cases of food poisoning linked to eggs, have come from eating sunny-side up friend eggs - "The classic American Breakfast" as Land O Lakes calls it (their image is below).
And yes, during the last year, as I was finishing writing the book (which has a chapter on eggs) I became increasingly aware that almost every visual image of a fried egg used by the media is a sunny-side up egg. I am an avid New York Times reader, and while I am impressed with their constant and in-depth coverage of food safety issues, I am horrified that the newspaper is unwittingly promoting what the FDA calls "unsafe eggs."
That goes for some egg producer ads and even the American Egg Board (AEB). Last night I watched a movie I had recorded about a week ago - and guess what, there was an add by the American Egg Board displaying their "Incredible Egg" battle call superimposed over the image of a sunny-side up egg (usually it's a boiled egg). I just checked their website and, with a couple of exceptions, there are plenty of underdone fried eggs there too. These same egg companies, and the AEB are telling us to cook our eggs thoroughly, even if only about one in 10,000 is likely to carry Salmonella. Talk of mixed messages! Go to your frig and take a look at the FDA's Safe Handling Instructions on your egg carton: "To prevent illness from bacteria, keep eggs refrigerated, cook eggs until yolks are firm, and cook foods containing eggs thoroughly."
Visual images are powerful. These visual images we see all over the place are keeping Americans eating sunny-side up eggs. Shame on all those news media and companies who are putting aesthetics above safety!
TSF
Saturday, February 5, 2011
TUNA STEAK RECALL
Mercury is not the only toxic substance that could be in your delicious tuna steak. Mind you, on that issue, yellow-fin tuna is fairly high in mercury, but likely to have lower levels than some other kinds such as Bigeye Tuna, and far less than fish such as Tilefish, King Mackerel, Shark and Swordfish.
Unfortunately, there is also another risk with tuna that we should keep in mind. Sometimes tuna (as well as mahimahi, bluefish, mackerel and some other fish) can sometimes have high levels of histamine protein. This can lead to scromboid poisoning in people who are sensitive. A glass of wine with your dinner could accentuate the effect.
Histamine is not a natural fish toxin. It occurs when certain fish spoil as a result of bad storage and handling. Usually, you cannot tell by the smell or appearance of the fish. In fact, there has been a recall of tuna by Rouses Markets in the Louisiana area for that reason (the fish came from the Gulf of Mexico). Last year, Whole Foods also had to recall its frozen yellow-fin tuna last April, because of elevated histamine levels (see earlier alert). These are just two examples. It's not all that uncommon. By the way, cooking or freezing the fish will not destroy the histamine.
In the case of some kinds of food poisoning symptoms will take days to develop. But scromboid poisoning is often very fast - 2 minutes to 2 hrs. Symptoms can last up to 24 hrs. If you are ever eating tuna (or one of these other fish) and get sudden flushing, sweating, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting,a rash like sunburn, and an odd metallic or peppery taste in your mouth, get help right away. But many doctors are not familiar with the symptoms.
Scromboid poisoning is usually not fatal - just very frightening and unpleasant. However, if you are taking certain medicines that slow down breakdown of histamine by the liver, you need to be especially careful.
TSF
Labels:
food recall,
histamine,
Louisiana,
Rouses Markets,
scromboid poisoning,
tuna
HOW TO SAFELY PREPARE GROUND BEEF
In my previous blog I stuck out my neck by saying that in my view the USDA is doing a better job of educating consumers about eating safely than the FDA. Well, today's ground beef recall notice from the USDA (see Alerts) bears out my point. The USDA has included a consumer education box along with the recall information. This is the first case I have noticed. I am passing it on, since I don't think many people read those recall notices. Of course, it's all just common sense, but it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves from time to time.
By the way, this recall was for bulk ground meat products that had been sent to restaurants all over southern California. Studies have shown that it is not unusual for restaurant workers to break these rules.
PREPARING GROUND BEEF FOR SAFE CONSUMPTION
Wash hands with warm, soapy water for at least 20 seconds before and after handling raw meat and poultry. Wash cutting boards, dishes and utensils with hot, soapy water. Immediately clean spills.
Keep raw meat, fish and poultry away from other food that will not be cooked. Use separate cutting boards for raw meat, poultry and egg products and cooked foods.
Consumers should only eat ground beef or ground beef patties that have been cooked to a safe internal temperature of 160° F.
Color is NOT a reliable indicator that ground beef or ground beef patties have been cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7.
The only way to be sure ground beef is cooked to a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria is to use a thermometer to measure the internal temperature.
Refrigerate raw meat and poultry within two hours after purchase or one hour if temperatures exceed 90° F. Refrigerate cooked meat and poultry within two hours after cooking.
TSF
Labels:
food preparation,
food recall,
food safety,
ground beef,
USDA
Friday, February 4, 2011
MARK BITTMAN'S "A FOOD MANIFESTO FOR THE FUTURE."
(FOTO - Courtesy of Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)
I like Mark Bittman, especially because he is battling convenient ready-to-eat foods, and arguing for home cooking. I also agree with many of his ideas, as expressed in "A Food Manifesto for the Future,"published in the New York Times on February 1, under the "Opinionator" ("Exclusive Online Commentary From The Times").
But that doesn't mean I fully agree with him. Maybe it's because I like realists - and in this case he's presented a manifesto that smacks too much of idealism. Through the centuries, idealism has got us into a lot of trouble politically and every other way. I could go on and on about this, but had better not. It doesn't help in the case of our food either. Let's "get real" as my son used to say. That's the only way we are going to solve our problems.
Down to specifics: while I really like Bittman's emphasis on food safety, it's importance, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) budget problems (their operating budget is pathetic), I don't accept his proposed solutions. What he's essentially saying is "Let's give the FDA more money and get it to take over all the responsibility for food safety [it currently covers 80%], because the USDA is too affected by conflict of interest to care about the consumer. "
It's not that simple. The FDA is outdated in every which way. Yes, more money would help it hire more inspectors and inspect more of our domestic and imported food and food plants. But it's going to take a lot more than an increase in the FDA's operating budget for it to be able to cope effectively - even with its current responsibilities, let alone new ones. At a minimum it needs updated policies, strategies, procedures and information systems, staff re-training, and more.
What are we looking at time-wise - institutional innovation is not fast - let's say at least 10 years. And let's not pretend the FDA doesn't have conflict of interest either (read the book for details), or, imagine that the whole agency (instead of just a tiny slice of it) is focused on "encouraging sane eating."
I hate to say this, but after looking closely at both of these key agencies, my impression is that at present, the USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service is doing a better job of educating consumers and alerting them faster to problems than is the FDA/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Sorry Mark.
TSF
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
A STUDENT REVIEW of THE SAFE FOOD HANDBOOK
I had a student review of my book forwarded to me today. If I remember correctly, the book was given to the senior seminar class in this Los Angeles school to read over the Christmas vacation, along with Food, Inc. and In Defense of Food. I am cut-and-pasting it as sent to me, with no editing. A refreshing change from the more formal reviews in Library Journal and other publications.
"I found this book to be the most important that we have read so far. It wasn’t geared towards our food system so much as the risks hiding behind the health claims and cartoon mascots. There are so many dangers involved with our eating that we are completely unaware of, for good reason. I think this book did a great job giving the information in a very straight forward manner. The things I found most off putting about the previous books was their tendency to feel a bit repetitive and one sided. They focused mainly on how the food industry fails to do what is necessary to keep our food healthy and safe but without all the specifics mentioned in this book. It is important to know the exact ways in which people are failing to keep up the standards we need in order to have safe food. But it is even more important to know what the risks are in the first place because they are conveniently kept from us to make sure profits remain high and complaints remain scarce. Even though I completely believe the previous books have it right, I would rather read books that do not feel biased when it comes to food safety. There is enough confusion when it comes to food safety as it is. This book in every way just tells the honest truth about the serious food safety issues that the public has every right to be knowledgable about. It really enlightened me, especially about the dangers involved with seafood. I wish there were more books out there that gave such an unvarnished and unbiased viewpoint on these food problems."
Nice.. thank you, whoever you are. I especially like the fact that the review is actually based on reading the book. Some on Amazon are not! How can you intelligently and fairly review a book you have not even flipped through?
TSF
Labels:
amazon,
FOOD CONTAMINATION,
seafood,
the safe food handbook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)