Feeder this is a rarity in Canada. IF it is true VanC would be the logical place. It is like hollyweird with tree huggers, old hippies, PETA members, gangs basically people who have never been on a cattle ranch or seen a cow other than on TV. Could your rumor starter please name store he saw this in so it can be verified if this is more than r-calf propaganda.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Interesting observation
- Thread starter feeder
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
We were in Red Deer{medium sized city} today....doing some Xmas shopping. Went into Costco,this huge everything plus the kitchen sink type store,membership required. Anyway decieded to check out the meat department,nice looking meat,the big sign said AAA Canadian beef,the butcher area was behind spotless all glass windows,and butchers were cutting meat as costumers walked by. I was impressed by this.....the customers were definatly getting nice meat no matter where it came from.
PORKER
Well-known member
Eating GM foods is a health risk
Jeffrey Smith
November 28, 2007
Source of Article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/eating-gm-foods-is-a-health-risk/2007/11/27/1196036889507.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The Premier's decision to allow genetically modified crops is also bad for the economy.
JOHN Brumby's announcement to allow genetically modified (GM) foods to grow in Victoria threatens more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat.
Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in laboratory animals.
Government safety assessments, including those of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, do not identify many of the dangers, and a careful analysis reveals that industry's superficial studies submitted to FSANZ are designed to avoid finding them. The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a genetically engineered crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This massive collateral damage is why GM soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen, and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen. It also may explain why British soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.
But there is another possible cause. Genes inserted into GM soy produce a protein with allergenic properties. Moreover, the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM foods found that those genes had transferred into the DNA of our gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GM food, its potentially dangerous protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines.
GM corn and cotton have genes inserted that produce a pesticide called Bt. If the gene transferred from corn snacks, for example, it could turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories. Farmers on three continents link Bt corn varieties with sterility in pigs and cows, or deaths among cows, horses, water buffaloes and chickens. Hundreds of farm workers who pick Bt cotton get allergic reactions.
When sheep grazed on the cotton plants after harvest, one out of four died within a week — about 10,000 sheep died last year. Lab animals fed GM crops had altered sperm cells and embryos, a five-fold increase in infant mortality, smaller brains, and a host of other disturbing problems.
Documents made public by a lawsuit revealed that scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration warned that gene-spliced foods might lead to allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems.
Although they urged superiors to demand long-term studies, official FDA policy claims they never heard such concerns and that no safety tests are required. The person in charge of that FDA policy was the former attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto — and later the company's vice-president.
In the US, the White House had instructed the FDA to promote GM crops, hoping it would increase US exports. They were wrong. When 25% of US corn farmers planted GM varieties, corn sales to the EU dropped by 99.4%. All corn farmers suffered as prices fell by 13 to 20%. Soy and canola markets also closed, and the US now spends an additional $3 to $5 billion per year in subsidising the GM crops no one wants. The US Department of Agriculture admits that GM crops do not increase farmer profit and can actually hurt incomes; they do not increase yield and often produce less.
Canadian canola yields were down 7.5% and profits plummeted as exports were diverted from the premium-paying EU market to the low-priced Chinese. What was bad for Canada was good for Australia, as Australia captured non-GM markets and soon enjoyed a $63 price advantage.
Food marketers in North America deeply resent GM crops, which don't offer a single consumer benefit. In fact 29% of Americans are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. A growing number of doctors are prescribing a non-GM diet. Next year, the US natural food industry will remove all remaining GM ingredients and non-GM shopping guides will appear in stores nationwide.
Consumer buying pressure will likely force the entire food chain in North America to swear off GM within the next two years. Such a tipping point was achieved in Europe in April 1999, when virtually all major manufacturers vowed to go non-GM in a single week.
So with all this evidence, why is Australia turning a blind eye to the dangers of genetically engineered foods?
Australia should be sitting down and taking notice of the response to GM foods throughout the world.
With GM markets closing, the negative impact of GM in North America, and the overwhelming evidence of harm from GM food, it is certainly not the time to let the state ban expire.
With the state ban lifting in Victoria and now NSW, before we know it there won't be any food on our tables that is not genetically engineered.
Jeffrey Smith, the author of Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, is executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in Iowa, USA.
Jeffrey Smith
November 28, 2007
Source of Article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/eating-gm-foods-is-a-health-risk/2007/11/27/1196036889507.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The Premier's decision to allow genetically modified crops is also bad for the economy.
JOHN Brumby's announcement to allow genetically modified (GM) foods to grow in Victoria threatens more than just the income of Australia's farmers and food companies. There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat.
Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in laboratory animals.
Government safety assessments, including those of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, do not identify many of the dangers, and a careful analysis reveals that industry's superficial studies submitted to FSANZ are designed to avoid finding them. The process of inserting a foreign gene into a plant cell and cloning that cell into a genetically engineered crop produces hundreds of thousands of mutations throughout the DNA. Natural plant genes may be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds can change their function. This massive collateral damage is why GM soy has less protein, an unexpected new allergen, and up to seven times higher levels of a known soy allergen. It also may explain why British soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.
But there is another possible cause. Genes inserted into GM soy produce a protein with allergenic properties. Moreover, the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM foods found that those genes had transferred into the DNA of our gut bacteria and remained functional. This means that long after we stop eating a GM food, its potentially dangerous protein may be produced continuously inside our intestines.
GM corn and cotton have genes inserted that produce a pesticide called Bt. If the gene transferred from corn snacks, for example, it could turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories. Farmers on three continents link Bt corn varieties with sterility in pigs and cows, or deaths among cows, horses, water buffaloes and chickens. Hundreds of farm workers who pick Bt cotton get allergic reactions.
When sheep grazed on the cotton plants after harvest, one out of four died within a week — about 10,000 sheep died last year. Lab animals fed GM crops had altered sperm cells and embryos, a five-fold increase in infant mortality, smaller brains, and a host of other disturbing problems.
Documents made public by a lawsuit revealed that scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration warned that gene-spliced foods might lead to allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems.
Although they urged superiors to demand long-term studies, official FDA policy claims they never heard such concerns and that no safety tests are required. The person in charge of that FDA policy was the former attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto — and later the company's vice-president.
In the US, the White House had instructed the FDA to promote GM crops, hoping it would increase US exports. They were wrong. When 25% of US corn farmers planted GM varieties, corn sales to the EU dropped by 99.4%. All corn farmers suffered as prices fell by 13 to 20%. Soy and canola markets also closed, and the US now spends an additional $3 to $5 billion per year in subsidising the GM crops no one wants. The US Department of Agriculture admits that GM crops do not increase farmer profit and can actually hurt incomes; they do not increase yield and often produce less.
Canadian canola yields were down 7.5% and profits plummeted as exports were diverted from the premium-paying EU market to the low-priced Chinese. What was bad for Canada was good for Australia, as Australia captured non-GM markets and soon enjoyed a $63 price advantage.
Food marketers in North America deeply resent GM crops, which don't offer a single consumer benefit. In fact 29% of Americans are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. A growing number of doctors are prescribing a non-GM diet. Next year, the US natural food industry will remove all remaining GM ingredients and non-GM shopping guides will appear in stores nationwide.
Consumer buying pressure will likely force the entire food chain in North America to swear off GM within the next two years. Such a tipping point was achieved in Europe in April 1999, when virtually all major manufacturers vowed to go non-GM in a single week.
So with all this evidence, why is Australia turning a blind eye to the dangers of genetically engineered foods?
Australia should be sitting down and taking notice of the response to GM foods throughout the world.
With GM markets closing, the negative impact of GM in North America, and the overwhelming evidence of harm from GM food, it is certainly not the time to let the state ban expire.
With the state ban lifting in Victoria and now NSW, before we know it there won't be any food on our tables that is not genetically engineered.
Jeffrey Smith, the author of Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, is executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology in Iowa, USA.
PORKER
Well-known member
Clark Marler Comments on ecoli H7; Is this an explanation? What is the change? I understand that perhaps with the increase in the price of oil there has been an increase in ethanol production and waste products – eaten by cows?
I found this interesting article put out by Kansas State University - Feeding cattle byproduct of ethanol production causes E. coli O157:H7 to spike.
According to the K-State Press Release - Ethanol plants and livestock producers have created a symbiotic relationship. Cattle producers feed their livestock distiller's grains, a byproduct of the ethanol distilling process, giving ethanol producers have an added source of income. But recent research at Kansas State University has found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in their hindgut. The growth in ethanol plants means more cattle are likely to be fed distiller's grain, therefore harboring E. coli O157:H7 and potentially a source of health risks to humans. Research by K-State in the next few years will focus on finding out why E. coli O157:H7 is more prevalent in cattle fed a distiller's grain diet. It could be something that changes in the animals' hindgut as a result of feeding distiller's grains, or maybe the byproduct provides a nutrient for the bacteria.
Perhaps the increase in the price of oil, leading to more ethanol production, leading to more E. coli O157:H7 in cow's guts, in combination with a less experienced slaughterhouse workforce, has increased the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger, leading to the increased recalls and illnesses? Who Knows?
I found this interesting article put out by Kansas State University - Feeding cattle byproduct of ethanol production causes E. coli O157:H7 to spike.
According to the K-State Press Release - Ethanol plants and livestock producers have created a symbiotic relationship. Cattle producers feed their livestock distiller's grains, a byproduct of the ethanol distilling process, giving ethanol producers have an added source of income. But recent research at Kansas State University has found that cattle fed distiller's grain have an increased prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in their hindgut. The growth in ethanol plants means more cattle are likely to be fed distiller's grain, therefore harboring E. coli O157:H7 and potentially a source of health risks to humans. Research by K-State in the next few years will focus on finding out why E. coli O157:H7 is more prevalent in cattle fed a distiller's grain diet. It could be something that changes in the animals' hindgut as a result of feeding distiller's grains, or maybe the byproduct provides a nutrient for the bacteria.
Perhaps the increase in the price of oil, leading to more ethanol production, leading to more E. coli O157:H7 in cow's guts, in combination with a less experienced slaughterhouse workforce, has increased the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in hamburger, leading to the increased recalls and illnesses? Who Knows?
PORKER
Well-known member
Study finds DDG-E. coli link
By Jerry W. Kram
Latest Update
Web exclusive posted Dec. 7, 2007
Source of Article: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3513
A study conducted by researchers at Kansas State University found that adding dried distillers grain to cattle rations increased the prevalence of E. coli O157 in cattle manure samples. E. coli O157 is a serotype of a bacteria normally found in the intestines. It produces a toxin that can cause severe health problems or death and have forced many recalls of meat products.
The study, which will be published in Applied Environmental Microbiology in January, examined 379 heifers fed one of three diets: steam flaked corn with 15 percent silage and either 0 percent or 25 percent DDGS or steam flaked corn with 5 percent silage and 25 percent DDGS. The prevalence of E. coli O157 varied greatly over the 12 week study, something that has been seen in other cattle feeding studies. However, the prevalence of the pathogen was higher in the two groups cattle fed the rations containing DDGS. Two concurrent studies described in the paper sampled fluid from the rumen and intestines of cattle and also found that E. coli O157 grew more vigorously in fluid collected from the cattle fed DDGS.
"This is a very interesting observation and is likely to have profound implications in food safety," said T.G. Nagaraja, professor of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology and one of the authors of the study.
The paper discussed two hypotheses to explain the increased prevalence of the pathogenic bacteria. One is that using distillers grains lowers the amount of starch and increases the amount of fiber in the cattle rations. That changes the environment of the cattle's digestive tract which allows the pathogen to gain a competitive advantage over other intestinal flora. Another hypothesis is that there is some component of distillers grains that promotes the growth of E. coli O157. There is some evidence supporting this idea from in vitro experiments.
The conclusions of the paper stated that the implications of these observations were very serious because of the increasing role of distillers grains in the cattle industry due to the rapid expansion of ethanol production. Beef producers and processors are unlikely to want a product that appears to increase the prevalence of E. coli O157. The paper concluded that it is important to learn why distillers grains have this effect so researchers can devise feeding strategies that do not compromise the perceived safety of beef products. "Feeding cattle distiller's grain is a big economic advantage for ethanol plants," Nagaraja said. "We realize we can't tell cattle producers, 'Don't feed distiller's grain.' What we want to do is not only understand the reasons why O157 increases, but also find a way to prevent that from happening."
Nagaraja said research in the next few years will focus on finding out why O157 is more prevalent in cattle fed a distiller's grain diet.
By Jerry W. Kram
Latest Update
Web exclusive posted Dec. 7, 2007
Source of Article: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3513
A study conducted by researchers at Kansas State University found that adding dried distillers grain to cattle rations increased the prevalence of E. coli O157 in cattle manure samples. E. coli O157 is a serotype of a bacteria normally found in the intestines. It produces a toxin that can cause severe health problems or death and have forced many recalls of meat products.
The study, which will be published in Applied Environmental Microbiology in January, examined 379 heifers fed one of three diets: steam flaked corn with 15 percent silage and either 0 percent or 25 percent DDGS or steam flaked corn with 5 percent silage and 25 percent DDGS. The prevalence of E. coli O157 varied greatly over the 12 week study, something that has been seen in other cattle feeding studies. However, the prevalence of the pathogen was higher in the two groups cattle fed the rations containing DDGS. Two concurrent studies described in the paper sampled fluid from the rumen and intestines of cattle and also found that E. coli O157 grew more vigorously in fluid collected from the cattle fed DDGS.
"This is a very interesting observation and is likely to have profound implications in food safety," said T.G. Nagaraja, professor of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology and one of the authors of the study.
The paper discussed two hypotheses to explain the increased prevalence of the pathogenic bacteria. One is that using distillers grains lowers the amount of starch and increases the amount of fiber in the cattle rations. That changes the environment of the cattle's digestive tract which allows the pathogen to gain a competitive advantage over other intestinal flora. Another hypothesis is that there is some component of distillers grains that promotes the growth of E. coli O157. There is some evidence supporting this idea from in vitro experiments.
The conclusions of the paper stated that the implications of these observations were very serious because of the increasing role of distillers grains in the cattle industry due to the rapid expansion of ethanol production. Beef producers and processors are unlikely to want a product that appears to increase the prevalence of E. coli O157. The paper concluded that it is important to learn why distillers grains have this effect so researchers can devise feeding strategies that do not compromise the perceived safety of beef products. "Feeding cattle distiller's grain is a big economic advantage for ethanol plants," Nagaraja said. "We realize we can't tell cattle producers, 'Don't feed distiller's grain.' What we want to do is not only understand the reasons why O157 increases, but also find a way to prevent that from happening."
Nagaraja said research in the next few years will focus on finding out why O157 is more prevalent in cattle fed a distiller's grain diet.
PORKER
Well-known member
Beef producers and processors are unlikely to want a product that appears to increase the prevalence of E. coli O157.
PORKER
Well-known member
Produce growers in a pickle over self regulation
( Washington Post) – Large handlers of leafy green vegetables, still recovering from last year's E. coli bacteria-induced recalls of packaged spinach, want U.S. permission to self-regulate the safety of your tossed salad.
An Oct. 4 Agriculture Department proposal to consider a voluntary standards program generated 3,500 comments by last week, compared with the usual handful in such cases, demonstrating that the industry isn't united. Small growers and consumer groups fear the plan gives larger rivals more control in the $2.2 billion-a-year market for lettuce and spinach.
"It's a very smart and kind of shady attempt to try and regulate themselves," Elisa Odabashian, West Coast coordinator for Consumers Union, a Yonkers, N.Y., nonprofit group, said in an interview. "Consumers are rarely protected by self-regulation."
The disagreement exposes the philosophical and financial divide between agribusiness and smaller sectors of the industry and the debate over how food safety should be regulated to restore consumer confidence in fresh produce.
The Western Growers Association in Irvine, Calif., which represents farms and companies that grow, pack and ship half the nation's produce, is pushing the idea after growers and shippers took $100 million in losses from the recalls. The plan is patterned after recent California and Arizona programs and would put a U.S. imprimatur on industry-developed "good agriculture practices."
"We are trying to take it nationwide," Tom Nassif, Western Growers' president and chief executive, said of the state agreements. "It's the strongest and best metrics in the produce industry. We are trying to give consumers what they deserve."
The goal is creation of a national safety and certification program that growers would have to abide by if they want to sell their crops to wholesalers, retailers, food-service purveyors and producers such as Dole Food of Westlake Village, Calif., the world's largest producer of fresh vegetables.
Government auditors from the Agriculture Department would verify that the protocol developed by the industry is followed. Federal penalties would be assessed for violations.
The Food and Drug Administration has primary responsibility for the safety of about 80 percent of the U.S. food supply, including leafy green produce. The Agriculture Department proposal said it wouldn't supplant FDA authority to inspect farms and food processors.
Michael Herndon , an FDA spokesman, said the agency "encourages all efforts at reducing the risk of pathogenic contamination during the production and handling of leafy greens" and will discuss the proposal with Agriculture Department.
The Agriculture Department is exploring either a marketing agreement or an order, both of which are highly specialized regulatory mechanisms that have never been used solely to implement a national food-safety program.
Membership in the department's 33 marketing orders is mandatory once producers vote to design and fund one to stabilize markets, set standards and promote products. Participation in a marketing agreement, on the other hand, is voluntary. Those who choose to join are required to comply with the specifications.
Smaller growers oppose the U.S. proposal, saying local farms in California haven't been involved in outbreaks of E. coli, which can cause serious illness and death. They believe there is more risk of contamination in bags of fresh-cut greens because they must be refrigerated during processing, shipping and delivery, increasing the chance of multi-state outbreaks.
"We don't believe a marketing act program is a very good way to govern on-farm practices," said Judith Redmond, a partner at the organic farm Full Belly Farm in Guinda, Calif., and president of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, a nonprofit focused on smaller growers. "To have national rules on how my farm grows chard is problematic."
Redmond said some of the required practices would harm the environment, be too costly for small- and medium-size growers and give big growers and processors regulatory authority over the industry. Smaller growers are working on their own safety plan, she said.
The Western Growers Association said there should be no exemptions from uniform steps that growers and handlers should have to follow to certify the safety of lettuce, spinach, endive, kale, cabbage and other greens.
At a congressional hearing in May, Joseph Pezzini, an executive with Ocean Mist Farms in Castroville, Calif., and the chairman overseeing California's Leafy Green Handlers Marketing Agreement, said industry is best suited to define best practices for handling the covered vegetables.
The Consumers Union's Odabashian opposed the marketing-agreement plan in comments, saying the Agriculture Department idea isn't appropriate for addressing safety concerns. She said in an interview that the California agreement, which went into effect in July, didn't prevent two recent recalls.
Nassif said E. coli outbreaks aren't confined to bagged greens. The industry shouldn't compete on the basis of whose product is safer, he said. Nassif agreed it is tougher for small growers to comply with a mandatory standard, suggesting those costs should be passed on at the retail level.
Michael Durando , branch chief of Agriculture Department's marketing order administrative branch, said "there is no firm timeline by any means" for regulators to decide what kind of program would best reduce the risk of contamination in salad greens.
The exceptionally high number of comments -- most commodity-specific rules get two or three responses -- show the high stakes in the safety of tossed salad. "A hot-button issue might get 100 comments," he said.
Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News.
( Washington Post) – Large handlers of leafy green vegetables, still recovering from last year's E. coli bacteria-induced recalls of packaged spinach, want U.S. permission to self-regulate the safety of your tossed salad.
An Oct. 4 Agriculture Department proposal to consider a voluntary standards program generated 3,500 comments by last week, compared with the usual handful in such cases, demonstrating that the industry isn't united. Small growers and consumer groups fear the plan gives larger rivals more control in the $2.2 billion-a-year market for lettuce and spinach.
"It's a very smart and kind of shady attempt to try and regulate themselves," Elisa Odabashian, West Coast coordinator for Consumers Union, a Yonkers, N.Y., nonprofit group, said in an interview. "Consumers are rarely protected by self-regulation."
The disagreement exposes the philosophical and financial divide between agribusiness and smaller sectors of the industry and the debate over how food safety should be regulated to restore consumer confidence in fresh produce.
The Western Growers Association in Irvine, Calif., which represents farms and companies that grow, pack and ship half the nation's produce, is pushing the idea after growers and shippers took $100 million in losses from the recalls. The plan is patterned after recent California and Arizona programs and would put a U.S. imprimatur on industry-developed "good agriculture practices."
"We are trying to take it nationwide," Tom Nassif, Western Growers' president and chief executive, said of the state agreements. "It's the strongest and best metrics in the produce industry. We are trying to give consumers what they deserve."
The goal is creation of a national safety and certification program that growers would have to abide by if they want to sell their crops to wholesalers, retailers, food-service purveyors and producers such as Dole Food of Westlake Village, Calif., the world's largest producer of fresh vegetables.
Government auditors from the Agriculture Department would verify that the protocol developed by the industry is followed. Federal penalties would be assessed for violations.
The Food and Drug Administration has primary responsibility for the safety of about 80 percent of the U.S. food supply, including leafy green produce. The Agriculture Department proposal said it wouldn't supplant FDA authority to inspect farms and food processors.
Michael Herndon , an FDA spokesman, said the agency "encourages all efforts at reducing the risk of pathogenic contamination during the production and handling of leafy greens" and will discuss the proposal with Agriculture Department.
The Agriculture Department is exploring either a marketing agreement or an order, both of which are highly specialized regulatory mechanisms that have never been used solely to implement a national food-safety program.
Membership in the department's 33 marketing orders is mandatory once producers vote to design and fund one to stabilize markets, set standards and promote products. Participation in a marketing agreement, on the other hand, is voluntary. Those who choose to join are required to comply with the specifications.
Smaller growers oppose the U.S. proposal, saying local farms in California haven't been involved in outbreaks of E. coli, which can cause serious illness and death. They believe there is more risk of contamination in bags of fresh-cut greens because they must be refrigerated during processing, shipping and delivery, increasing the chance of multi-state outbreaks.
"We don't believe a marketing act program is a very good way to govern on-farm practices," said Judith Redmond, a partner at the organic farm Full Belly Farm in Guinda, Calif., and president of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, a nonprofit focused on smaller growers. "To have national rules on how my farm grows chard is problematic."
Redmond said some of the required practices would harm the environment, be too costly for small- and medium-size growers and give big growers and processors regulatory authority over the industry. Smaller growers are working on their own safety plan, she said.
The Western Growers Association said there should be no exemptions from uniform steps that growers and handlers should have to follow to certify the safety of lettuce, spinach, endive, kale, cabbage and other greens.
At a congressional hearing in May, Joseph Pezzini, an executive with Ocean Mist Farms in Castroville, Calif., and the chairman overseeing California's Leafy Green Handlers Marketing Agreement, said industry is best suited to define best practices for handling the covered vegetables.
The Consumers Union's Odabashian opposed the marketing-agreement plan in comments, saying the Agriculture Department idea isn't appropriate for addressing safety concerns. She said in an interview that the California agreement, which went into effect in July, didn't prevent two recent recalls.
Nassif said E. coli outbreaks aren't confined to bagged greens. The industry shouldn't compete on the basis of whose product is safer, he said. Nassif agreed it is tougher for small growers to comply with a mandatory standard, suggesting those costs should be passed on at the retail level.
Michael Durando , branch chief of Agriculture Department's marketing order administrative branch, said "there is no firm timeline by any means" for regulators to decide what kind of program would best reduce the risk of contamination in salad greens.
The exceptionally high number of comments -- most commodity-specific rules get two or three responses -- show the high stakes in the safety of tossed salad. "A hot-button issue might get 100 comments," he said.
Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News.
PORKER
Well-known member
Dutch patients die after taking probiotics
By Alex McNally
TAGS
Cultures, enzymes, yeast
LATEST NEWS HEADLINES
Raisio sharpens focus with share swap
Hydrocolloids' health benefits extended
News briefs: NewTree, Fairtrade and KitKat
Dutch food agency says probiotics are safe
EU spirit makers question Thai import charges
GET THE LATEST MARKET REPORTS
EFFCA
probiotics
All market reports
25/01/2008 - Twenty-four patients taking part in a trial procedure to treat acute pancreatitis with probiotics have died.
An investigation is now being carried out on the University Medical Centre Utrecht's study, which was testing the effectiveness of probiotics at reducing infection.
The European Food and Feed Cultures Association (EFFCA), which represents manufacturers of probiotic strains, said it is paying "serious attention" to the study and is awaiting the official publication of the findings.
Researchers carried out the large study between 2004 and 2007, after smaller tests had shown probiotics could help reduce the rate of infection in the pancreas. These were considered too small to convince doctors to use probiotics in all patients with this condition.
Two hundred and ninety-six patients with acute pancreatitis - a rare and very serious disease - took part in the study across 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Twenty-four died in the study group and nine died in the control group.
Because it was a double blind study - which means neither patients or researchers knew whether they were in the control or experimental group - the findings not emerge until the end of the trial.
Health investigators do not know the cause of the deaths, but have narrowed it down to three possible potentials: the use of probiotics on intensive-care patients; administering probiotics through feeding tubes into the intestine; and using the friendly bacteria in the acute phase of the disease.
The investigators have told colleagues not to use probiotics on patients who meet any of the three criteria under investigation.
By Alex McNally
TAGS
Cultures, enzymes, yeast
LATEST NEWS HEADLINES
Raisio sharpens focus with share swap
Hydrocolloids' health benefits extended
News briefs: NewTree, Fairtrade and KitKat
Dutch food agency says probiotics are safe
EU spirit makers question Thai import charges
GET THE LATEST MARKET REPORTS
EFFCA
probiotics
All market reports
25/01/2008 - Twenty-four patients taking part in a trial procedure to treat acute pancreatitis with probiotics have died.
An investigation is now being carried out on the University Medical Centre Utrecht's study, which was testing the effectiveness of probiotics at reducing infection.
The European Food and Feed Cultures Association (EFFCA), which represents manufacturers of probiotic strains, said it is paying "serious attention" to the study and is awaiting the official publication of the findings.
Researchers carried out the large study between 2004 and 2007, after smaller tests had shown probiotics could help reduce the rate of infection in the pancreas. These were considered too small to convince doctors to use probiotics in all patients with this condition.
Two hundred and ninety-six patients with acute pancreatitis - a rare and very serious disease - took part in the study across 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Twenty-four died in the study group and nine died in the control group.
Because it was a double blind study - which means neither patients or researchers knew whether they were in the control or experimental group - the findings not emerge until the end of the trial.
Health investigators do not know the cause of the deaths, but have narrowed it down to three possible potentials: the use of probiotics on intensive-care patients; administering probiotics through feeding tubes into the intestine; and using the friendly bacteria in the acute phase of the disease.
The investigators have told colleagues not to use probiotics on patients who meet any of the three criteria under investigation.
Porker, what is your point?
Are you warning us agains probiotics?
I have noticed quite a promotion of various yogurts as containing beneficial probiotics.
Or are you warning us be beware of treating acute pancreatitis with probiotics?
Does that illness lead to pancreatic cancer?
I do know that disease is devastating and often fatal.
Maybe it is worth experimenting a bit with methods to prevent it, IMO, having experienced the death of a relative from that cancer.
Is there some connection between this story, and the original line of this thread?
If there is, I've missed it. Would you please explain it?
mrj
Are you warning us agains probiotics?
I have noticed quite a promotion of various yogurts as containing beneficial probiotics.
Or are you warning us be beware of treating acute pancreatitis with probiotics?
Does that illness lead to pancreatic cancer?
I do know that disease is devastating and often fatal.
Maybe it is worth experimenting a bit with methods to prevent it, IMO, having experienced the death of a relative from that cancer.
Is there some connection between this story, and the original line of this thread?
If there is, I've missed it. Would you please explain it?
mrj
PORKER
Well-known member
The investigators have told colleagues not to use probiotics on patients who meet any of the three criteria under investigation.
Consumers or patients are rarely protected by self-regulation."
Patients are rarely protected by Any regulation." Think Guinea Pigs
Consumers or patients are rarely protected by self-regulation."
Patients are rarely protected by Any regulation." Think Guinea Pigs
So, are those probiotics the same thing as in the yogurts advertised to have probiotics in them, or are they something else entirely?
Are you also saying that patients have no ability to refuse any treatment prescribed?
Maybe it is unusual, but I've had several doctors ask if a particular medication is acceptable to me after they have explained why they believe it is what I need. And that includes my cancer medication.
mrj
Are you also saying that patients have no ability to refuse any treatment prescribed?
Maybe it is unusual, but I've had several doctors ask if a particular medication is acceptable to me after they have explained why they believe it is what I need. And that includes my cancer medication.
mrj
mrj said:So, are those probiotics the same thing as in the yogurts advertised to have probiotics in them, or are they something else entirely?
Are you also saying that patients have no ability to refuse any treatment prescribed?
Maybe it is unusual, but I've had several doctors ask if a particular medication is acceptable to me after they have explained why they believe it is what I need. And that includes my cancer medication.
mrj
mrj, there are billions of bacteria out there and some are known to be beneficial. It really depends which ones they were working with. It is obvious that those with really bad conditions may not be able to even have the administered probiotics with a weak immune system.
Porker is right though, that in large, that test group was just a bunch of guinea pigs.