Less than a month ago, the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest submitted a petition to the FDA, insisting a ban of 4-MEI, a chemical commonly found in the caramel coloring in sodas like Coca-Cola and Pepsi. The group claims that 4-MEI is a cancer-causing substance. However, the American Beverage Association warned consumers in a statement issued on March 5^th that the CSPI is merely using “scare tactics” to present “outrageous” claims not grounded in scientific fact. The association also ensured that the “FDA, European Food Safety Authority and Health Canada consider caramel coloring safe for use in foods and beverages.”

The fraudulent claims made by the interest group were grounded in California’s recent motion to add 4-MEI to its list of carcinogens, or cancer-causing substances. This addition was based on a single study performed on lab mice and rats, not humans. According to the American Beverage Association’s press release, “a person would need to drink more than 2,900 cans of cola every day for 70 years to reach the lowest dose levels mice received in the single study upon which California based its decision.” In other words, the study does not present enough scientific evidence to support the ban of caramel coloring or to prove that it causes cancer. Therefore, the CSPI’s petition will not affect the production or distribution of caramel-colored beverages.

Perhaps the only valid claim made by the consumer group is their warning about the possibility of weight gain and development of diabetes caused by excessively drinking sugary soft drinks. However, until research proves otherwise, the leading public health organizations insist that caramel coloring does not put one at risk for cancer.

As for me, after such a heavy discussion, I really could go for an ice cold Coca-Cola.

–Madelyn Tucker

Sources: ameribev.org, cspinet.org, latimes.com

At StateFoodSafety.com we invite all our staff to contribute to this blog and respond to the food safety discussions that are most prevalent in the media. One of our team members has written a response to a few of our earlier posts on raw milk. Read, think, and share your opinion in the comments.

Is drinking raw milk something that we really need to be worried about? The CDC estimates that 48 million, or one in six, people get sick from foodborne illnesses each year. Recent news stories might have you believe that raw milk is one of the biggest culprits. Let’s look at some of the numbers and see if it is.

The FDA compiled a list of people who got sick from raw milk consumption between 1987 and 2010. In this period of time, 2,659 individuals or about 111 people a year fell ill from consuming raw milk. This means that 0.000231% of reported food poisoning cases are caused by raw milk. According to the CDC’s FoodNet population survey from 2006-2007, 3% of the people interviewed drank raw milk and 78.5% drank pasteurized milk. If everyone in the U.S drank only raw milk, we would find that 0.00604% of reported food poisoning cases would be caused by raw milk. So is raw milk causing a huge problem like the news would have you believe? I think not. Unfortunately, any time we stick something in our mouths there is no guarantee of avoiding a foodborne illness. Seems to me that there are far greater risks posed by other foods we consume than raw milk.

So why exactly might an individual choose raw over pasteurized milk? In a Harvard study, Dr. Ganmaa Davaasambuu, who has a Ph.D. in environmental health, found that modern pasteurized milk contains much higher rates of estrogen and progesterone than raw milk from Mongolia. She also found links between dairy consumption and prostate, testicular, and breast cancers. She suggests more research be done in order to determine the damage that pasteurized milk might be causing our bodies. Raw milk supporters also say that  the benefits of raw milk include amino acids, omega 6 fatty acids, lactose digesting bacteria, probiotics, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and a better taste. Some of these benefits may not be found in pasteurized milk products. In addition, The CDC reports that between 1980 and 2005, 19,531 illnesses were caused by the consumption of pasteurized milk, meaning that an average of 751 people each year contracted an illness from supposedly “safe” milk. In other words, pasteurization does not guarantee that a consumer will not get sick.

To supplement the information I found on the FDA and CDC’s websites, I emailed Dr. Tom Anderson, an NAET doctor in Salt Lake City, Utah, and asked for his opinion on raw vs. pasteurized milk. Dr. Anderson replied, “I believe raw (organic) milk to be the only safe milk to drink.” Prior to researching this topic, I was fine with other people drinking raw milk, but I wouldn’t have considered it in my own diet. Having looked through both sides of the issue, including data from the CDC and FDA, I am thoroughly convinced, like Dr. Anderson, that raw milk is the only way to go. I would encourage everyone to do their own research and find out for themselves. As for me though, I switched from pasteurized to raw milk, and I’m telling everyone I know to do the same. The flavor was fantastic.

–Jed Nieveen

Sources: FDA.gov, realmilk.com, CDC.gov, CDC.gov/foodnet, westonaprice.org, foodsafety.gov, naturalnews.com, news.harvard.edu, rawmilktruth.com

Madelyn Tucker also contributed to this post.

It’s been five months since cantaloupes from Jensen Farms, CO were discovered to be tainted with Listeria monocytogenes in what has become one of the USA’s most deadly Listeria outbreaks. Last February, 68 year-old Mike Hauser died of Listeriosis after falling ill in September 2011. His passing brings the estimate of adult deaths associated with the outbreak to 34. However, experts agree that nailing down an exact number of deaths continues to be a challenge, especially when the victims do not show symptoms for weeks or even months after having consumed Listeria-tainted food.

Listeria monocytogenes is a bacterium that is frequently foodborne because of its association with animal feces. In fact, it is estimated that around 10% of human gastrointestinal tracts are colonized by Listeria. Among persons with normal, healthy immune systems, Listeriosis is relatively rare. But for high-risk populations, especially newborns, pregnant women, and the elderly, Listeriosis can be extremely dangerous; causing fever, aches, vomiting, septicemia, early delivery, miscarriage, meningitis, and death.

The number one question our staffers have received in association with this outbreak is “How could cantaloupe become contaminated with Listeria?” It’s a good question, especially considering all the regulations we have domestically regarding food manufacturing and farming. So how did these cantaloupes pass under the radar to affect so many people? The FDA and local health inspectors think they may have found the answer.

In a report issued last fall, investigators stated that waste cantaloupes were taken by truck from a packing facility to a nearby cattle farm. Cows and other livestock are common carriers of Listeria and the truck’s wheels likely became contaminated with cattle feces. The feces (and its associated pathogens) were then transported back to the cantaloupe packing facility where standing water, building materials and equipment that were difficult to clean, and second-hand washing machines created a breeding ground for Listeria. This bacterial perfect storm resulted in countless melons becoming contaminated and ending up in grocery stores nationwide. Ironically, Jensen Farms had used a third-party auditor to review and approve their safe farming and growing practices. The farm was given a seal of approval just days before the contaminated fruit was shipped.

Last month, Larry Goodridge, associate professor at the Center for Meat Safety and Quality at Colorado State University, urged Colorado farmers to no longer rely on third-party inspectors to ensure their products and processes are safe. The proverbial “buck” will always stop with the farmer. “Each farm or processing facility has to be able to assess their own risks,” he stated at the governor’s annual forum on Colorado agriculture, “Everybody who produces food has to be responsible for the safety of the food they produce. You cannot rely on third parties. You just can’t.” He also urged manufacturers and farmers to focus on cleanliness and sanitation, which practices could have prevented last year’s deadly outbreak.

So as a consumer, what can you do? Before preparing whole, unpeeled fruits or vegetables, like melons, StateFoodSafety.com recommends thoroughly scrubbing the rind with a drop of mild detergent or an equal-parts mixture of water and vinegar, and then rinsing the item in clean, potable water. Contamination on fruit and vegetable rinds will not often enter the edible portion of the food until a knife or other kitchen implement is introduced as a vector, pulling pathogens down into and through the food. We do not recommend washing fruits, vegetables, or bagged greens that have already been cut or prepared. If there is contamination present in the items, “washing” will merely spread pathogens around the food and your kitchen, increasing your likelihood of becoming sick.

For more information on this outbreak, hit up the source links below.

–Emilee Follett

Sources: usatoday.com, msnbc.msn.com, denverpost.com, dailycamera.com, Wikipedia, nutrition.about.com

Parts of the following story are true.  No names have been changed to protect the innocent, because there are no innocents. (Cue Law & Order sound effect)

I received the following text from my wife (sorry ladies) the other day:  “Some stranger at the library borrowed a pen from me, and now it’s in her mouth.”  To which I replied, “But how does she know you didn’t use it to scrape gum off your shoe?”  I just threw up a little in the back of my mouth.

When she gave it back, my wife tossed the pen in the nearest garbage can.  Who knows where this strange woman’s mouth has been? The mucous membranes in one’s mouth are full of germs that can potentially cause pneumonia, ear infections, strep throat, cold sores, etc. On the flip side, who knows where that pen has been? Maybe that pen was sitting next to the raw chicken my wife was preparing before going to the library, and she put it in her purse on the way out the door.  Maybe it was the pen I used to get that stupid super-bouncy ball from underneath the fridge because my five year old couldn’t live without it. Would you want to put something in your mouth that had been underneath the nasty fridge?

Babies put things in their mouths all the time to explore and find out about their world. It is apparent that as adults, we haven’t lost this drive. However, we should think twice about chewing or sucking on our pens or other inanimate objects because harmful bacteria and viruses can live on surfaces for extended periods. The influenza virus, for example, can potentially survive on surfaces for two to eight hours or more. In addition, we should avoid touching our eyes, mouths, and noses with our hands which is something all of us are guilty of. In a recent study by the University of California- Berkeley, researchers counted the number of times the participants touched their faces in an hour. Results showed that on average, each person made hand-to-face contact 16 times. Why is this concerning? Bacteria and viruses thrive in the mucus membranes of our noses, mouths, and eyes. In other words, your risk of contracting a cold or other diseases and infections increases when you touch these areas of your face.

Thus, while sharing a pen seems like a nice gesture, you could be passing on harmful germs to the pen borrower, and he/she might be passing some back to you when the pen is returned. To avoid this potentially hazardous exchange, bring your own pen to the library, and keep it out of your mouth. In addition, remember to wash your hands often with soap and water to reduce the amount of harmful bacteria you’re leaving behind on the surfaces you touch.

–Tim Snarr

Madelyn Tucker also contributed to this post.

Sources: CDC.gov, usatoday.com

As I was thinking about my St. Patrick’s Day plans and wondering what type of food I could dye green to really mess with the heads of my party guests, I started questioning the safety of color additives — even those already found in my food, toothpaste, and favorite lipstick. Chances are, if you pick up any consumer product nearest you, you’ll see a combination of Yellow 6’s and Blue 1’s listed on the ingredient label. Is there any reason to be concerned about these seemingly innocent splashes of color?

Color additives used in the United States are regulated by law. The FDA must approve color additives found in food, dietary supplements, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices. Action can be taken against companies that violate color additive regulations. However, the FDA warns consumers that “there is no such thing as absolute safety of any substance.”

Although color additives are found in a wide variety of products, a pigment approved for one intended use is not necessarily approved for other uses. In addition, color additives that are injected into the skin have never been approved, even though many tattoo parlors claim that their inks contain colors that are in compliance with FDA specifications. Similarly, permanent makeup and henna tattoos contain colors that are not FDA approved. However, these pigments are not necessarily dangerous.

Overall, there is probably no reason to be concerned about the green in your mouthwash or the red in your ketchup unless you are allergic to the additive. However, color additives sold or marketed outside of the United States are not subject to the same restrictions and regulations. Many imported cosmetics are detained due to color additive violations, so use caution when buying colorful beauty products abroad.

For more information on this, hit up the FDA source link below.

–Madelyn Tucker

Source: FDA.gov