Take-Out Cartons & FDA's Food Safety Woes

Could be… no styrofoam cup for my coffee… at least not in California.

This is The Environment Report. I’m Lester Graham.

A number of cities have banned Styrofoam food containers – including San Francisco, Seattle and Portland. One state is now voting on a bill that would take away the Styrofoam option for food all together. Rebecca Williams is covering this. So what’s up?

RW: The California legislature is voting this week on whether to make it illegal for restaurants and other food vendors to use the containers. The bill says Styrofoam is a huge litter problem – and animals can choke on it. And the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency says styrene is a possible human carcinogen. That’s the stuff Styrofoam’s made out from.

Jerry Hill is the Assembly member who introduced the bill in California. He says the American Chemistry Council and other groups are making it hard for him to get the votes he needs.

“You would think the world was going to come to an end if we were to prohibit and ban Styrofoam. It’s an industry that whether you look at the chemical industry, the restaurant industry that’s opposing it, and they are very vocal and very powerful.”

RW: The styrofoam folks say there’s no good reason to do this and it’ll be bad for the economy.


LG: And… of course… if this passes in California… there’s a pretty good chance other states might follow it’s lead.

RW: That’s the way a lot of these environmental restrictions go.

THANX


(((STING)))

This is The Environment Report.

In the wake of this year’s tainted peanut butter scare,
Congress is getting ready to approve changes to the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA’s reputation is a little tainted. But Julie Grant reports some people doubt Congress will be able to make much of a change. .

___
Gwen Rosenberg is a mom. She has four boys to feed. So she’d like to be able to trust that the food supply is safe.
But when Rosenberg heard that 8 people died after eating peanut products earlier this year, and hundreds more got sick, it confirmed her beliefs: that the Food and Drug Administration isn’t making sure food is safe.

ROSENBERG: THERE SHOULDN’T BE STORIES THAT COME OUT THAT REVEAL THAT THE PEANUT PLANT HASN’T BEEN INSPECTED FOR YEARS. OR WHEN IT WAS INSPECTED, THERE WAS RAT FECES. THEY’RE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. [:12]

Rosenberg wants the FDA to crack down on food manufacturers. She says they need inspect more - and shut down facilities when they find dangerous conditions. She was appalled when she realized the FDA has no authority to recall tainted foods.

ROSENBERG: THE FACT THAT THEY DON’T HAVE RECALL AUTHORITY ESSENTIALLY NEUTERS THE FDA. I MEAN HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TAKE ANYTHING THEY SAY OR DO SERIOUSLY IF THEY END RESULT IS, WELL, WE CAN’T FORCE YOU TO DO THIS? WELL, THANKS FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICE MESSAGE NOT TO EAT THE TAINTED PEANUT BUTTER, BUT YOU’RE NOT ACTUALLY MAKING ME ANY SAFER. [:16]

In the case of the Peanut Corporation of America, a test found salmonella in its products. It retested. When the test came out negative, it went ahead and shipped out the products.

And the FDA had no recall authority. Congressman Bart Stupak says that’s just wrong. He’s co-sponsoring a food safety bill that would give the FDA some authority in cases like this:

STUPAK: WHAT THE FDA CAN DO, SHUT ‘ER DOWN. PROVE TO ME THAT YOU CLEANED IT UP. PROVE TO ME, WHERE DID YOU DESTROY THIS PRODUCT. GIVE ME THE FACTS. THEY CAN’T GIVE YOU THE FACTS, SHUT ‘ER DOWN RIGHT NOW. LET’S NOT WAIT TEN DAYS. [:13]

But leaders in the FDA don’t think recall authority would have made much difference in the tainted peanut product case. David Acheson is Associate Commissioner for foods at the FDA. Once people started getting sick, he says most companies using the Peanut Corporation of America’s products voluntarily recalled their cookies and crackers.

ACHESON: THERE’S NO SUGGESTION THAT HAVING MANDATORY RECALL IS A PANACEA TO SOLVING FOOD SAFETY PROBLEMS. IT’S ONE MORE TOOL THAT WOULD BE USED FROM TIME TO TIME WHEN THE SITUATION WARRANTS IT, BUT IT’S NOT THE ANSWER TO MODERNIZING FOOD SAFETY. [:15]


Acheson says the real problem is that the FDA is so busy reacting to public health threats -to putting out fires - that it can’t get ahead of the problems and fix the food safety system.

He says the food system needs preventive controls.

There are a lot of points in the food supply chain where hazards can creep in: when the food is being grown, processed, distributed, or sold in a store. Acheson says the food industry needs to identify control points for each food – where they are most at risk at becoming unsafe:

ACHESON: IS IT A WILD ANIMAL IN A FIELD, IS IT THE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE SPINACH, IS THE TEMPERATURE IN MY FREEZER IN A RETAIL STORE. AND ALL THESE THINGS IN BETWEEN WHERE THINGS CAN GO WRONG AND FOOD CAN EITHER BECOME CONTAMINATED OR IF THERE IS A LOW LEVEL OF CONTAMINATION THEN BACTERIA CAN GROW. [:17]
CUT.

Once those control points are identified, Acheson says the FDA needs to do more inspections – to make sure food is being handlled safely from farms fields to grocery stores.
But that’s going to cost money. So Congress is considering charging companies fees to pay for those inspections.
Food manufacturers don’t like that idea. We contacted several companies, but none of them, not even the Grocery Manufacturers Association, would comment for this story.



The Government Accountability Office has had food safety listed as one of its high-risk areas… part of the problem is there are duplications of efforts between agencies such as FDA and the Department of Agriculture… and as Julie said… some gaps in inspections.

That’s The Environment Report. I’m Lester Graham.