Food safety. Federal inspection programs. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association

What Are the Current Findings Concerning Arsenic in Foods?

Ensuring Equitable Access to School Meals

Meeting US food safety regulations

Effects of biological attack on US food supplies.

The Need for Investment in Rigorous Interventions to Improve Child Food Security

Animal GeneticsVolume 36, Issue 2 p. 168-168 Linkage mapping of the porcine chromogranin B (CHGB) gene to chromosome 171 J. G. Kim, J. G. Kim US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorD. Nonneman, D. Nonneman US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJ. L. Vallet, J. L. Vallet US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorG. A. Rohrer, G. A. Rohrer US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorR. K. Christenson, R. K. Christenson US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this author J. G. Kim, J. G. Kim US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorD. Nonneman, D. Nonneman US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJ. L. Vallet, J. L. Vallet US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorG. A. Rohrer, G. A. Rohrer US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this authorR. K. Christenson, R. K. Christenson US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA. Present address: Department of Pathology, LSU Health Science Center, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 31 March 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2005.01241.x Ronald K. Christenson ([email protected]) 1 Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume36, Issue2April 2005Pages 168-168 RelatedInformation

Closing gaps for performing a risk assessment on Listeria monocytogenes in ready‐to‐eat (RTE) foods: activity 2, a quantitative risk characterization on L. monocytogenes in RTE foods; starting from the retail stage

What Are the New Nutrition Standards for the Child and Adult Care Food Program?

When President Obama signed the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] Food Safety Modernization Act1 into law on 4 January 2011, it marked the farthest-reaching changes to the U.S. food safety system in more than 70 years. Crafted in light of concern over foodborne disease outbreaks and perceived underinvestment in food-inspection capacity,2 the law combines a mandate for more FDA inspections with authority to respond quickly to illness outbreaks. The bill fundamentally restructures the way FDA monitors the food supply,” says Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. “FDA’s oversight role is greatly enhanced.” The agency also has enhanced authority over imported processors, a growing source of the U.S. food supply. She notes the law sets new standards for on-farm production, particularly certain high-risk fruits and vegetables.3 The FDA shares responsibility for food safety with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which handles poultry, meat, and certain egg products. On the other hand, the law doesn’t mark a huge change in direction overall. Robert Buchanan, director of the Center for Food Safety and Security Systems at the University of Maryland, explains that the new law gives FDA “some additional powers for when the industry isn’t doing what it’s supposed to be doing.” These include setting limits on key food pathogens, better surveillance, and more capacity for inspections and investigations following illness reports. The bill lays out a combination of producer performance standards and government inspections designed to ensure those standards are upheld. It sets a goal of “not fewer than 4,000 field staff members in fiscal year 2011 to carry out food-related activities,” according to FDA spokesman Douglas Karas. Last year’s budget allowed for about 2,800 full-time staff for field activities related to food, supplemented by other staff. Despite the law’s call for more inspectors and more frequent inspections, with the new Republican Congress vowing to slash federal budgets, Buchanan says, “Frankly, USDA and FDA will be lucky to keep the number of inspectors they already have. It’s a real concern.” The FDA declined interview requests, saying it’s still studying the new law and exploring partnerships with other agencies and watchdog groups. The new law leaves it to industry to decide which technologies to use to track outbreaks and manage tracking data. “Frequent shopper” cards used by grocery stores to track customers’ preferences may help. Some stores’ cards track food lot numbers, and they have led to recalls in some cases, according to David Goldman, assistant administrator for the Office of Public Health Science at the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. Some experts expect what the Washington Post called “a small gold rush” among tech companies anticipating a growing market in new food-tracking technologies.4 The California-based company YottaMark, Inc., for example, markets the HarvestMark system, which lets consumers scan produce labels using an iPhone app or type in tracking numbers online to learn precisely where the produce was grown and when it was harvested. HarvestMark is currently used by 200 companies. Will the new law reform the system? Time will tell. “This is always going to be an evolving activity,” Buchanan says. “But do I think this law is going to have a big impact? Yes. Huge.”

A major component of food safety programs is to assure compliance with regulatory limits for pesticides, environmental contaminants and veterinary drugs. While the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have primary responsibility for establishing regulatory limits for these substances, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has the daily responsibility for determining compliance with these residue limits in meat and poultry products. This food safety responsibility is accomplished through USDA's National Residue Program, complimented on occasions with special residue studies. Meeting the objectives of a statistically designed residue control program that traditionally examines 10 or more classes of xenobiotics and more than 75 individual compounds requires a wide variety of analytical and microbiological methods and screening tests in inspection facilities and laboratories using animal tissue, biological fluids or other matrices as a test media. Environmental, economic, regulatory and evolving public health considerations will require new strategies with more focus on screening methods to complement traditional quantitative and confirmatory laboratory methods.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs, and goats and from the offspring of clones of any species traditionally...

Monitoring Foods and Nutrients Sold and Consumed in the United States: Dynamics and Challenges

Cardiovascular News

The Need to Incorporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Reflections from a National Initiative Measuring Fruit and Vegetable Intake

What’s the Latest on Acrylamide?