South Dakota State Legislature passed Senate Bill 68 which bill prohibits labeling cell-cultured protein as meat in South Dakota.
The FDA’s approval of the application related to AquAdvantage Salmon followed a comprehensive analysis of the scientific evidence, which determined that the GE Atlantic salmon met the statutory requirements for safety and effectiveness under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, in 2016, Congress directed the FDA not to allow into commerce any food that contains GE salmon until it issued final labeling guidelines for informing consumers of the GE salmon content in the food. The FDA complied with this requirement by implementing an import alert in 2016 that prevented GE salmon from entering the U.S.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on announced a formal agreement to jointly oversee the production of human food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry. “FSIS has the statutory authority, relevant experience, and robust regulatory frameworks to regulate the labeling and safety of these products, and FDA has experience with similar food production technologies and has long played a role in ensuring that ingredients used in meat and poultry products are safe for use in food.”FDA will oversee collection of initial cell lines, maintenance of a cell bank, and oversee proliferation and differentiation of cells through the time of harvest. At harvest, USDA will determine whether harvested cells are eligible to be processed into meat or poultry products that bear the USDA mark of inspection. Establishments that are harvesting cells cultured from livestock or poultry are subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act. USDA will conduct inspections of establishments where cells cultured from livestock and poultry are harvested, processed, packaged, or labeled in accordance with applicable regulations.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued today a best practices guideline to help the meat and poultry industry respond to customer complaints that are determined to be associated with adulterated or misbranded meat and poultry products. “FSIS has placed renewed emphasis on industry responding to customer complaints of foreign materials in meat and poultry and, as required, reporting those incidents to the agency within 24 hours once the determination has been made that the product is adulterated,” said FSIS Administrator Carmen Rottenberg. “We will continue to work with industry and offer guidance to assist them in complying with agency regulations.”In 2012, FSIS announced a regulation requiring all establishments to report to the agency within 24 hours when they have shipped or received an adulterated product and that product is in commerce. While this requirement has been in effect for several years, recalls associated with foreign materials in product increased in recent years.
Raw milk is trending. Even the West Virginia Senate passed a resolution about it. But what does a dairy farmer say? You may not have known the milk you buy in the grocery store is cooked but it is. The process is called pasteurization. Lauren Perkins a fourth generation dairy farmer who works on her family’s dairy farm called Perk Farm Organic Dairy explained the process saying “[The milk is] heated to a temperature that can kill harmful bacteria.” But raw or unpasteurized milk is trending. Senator Dave Sypolt (R- Preston) is the chair of the Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. He said, “There’s been a motion or a movement in the state for the past five to seven years in order to legalize the sale of raw milk.” Right now herd sharing is allowed in West Virginia, but the sale of raw milk is illegal. Dairy farmers say raw milk can contain harmful bacteria like e coli, salmonella, listeria.
Beyond Beef offers the juicy taste and texture of ground beef but with 25% less saturated fat than beef. Created to deliver on the culinary flexibility of ground beef, Beyond Beef is perfect for tacos, meatballs, sliders, empanadas and more.Beyond Meat’s latest innovation contains only simple, plant-based ingredients and has no GMOs, no soy, and no gluten.
Food that is lost before it reaches the consumer, and food that is wasted by consumers, has been estimated to account for as much as 40% of the total food produced in the United States (Buzby, Wells, and Hyman, 2014; Hall et al., 2009). This represents losses of important resources—including water, chemical inputs, and labor—as well as unused nutrients for consumers. Stakeholders along the supply chain are increasingly interested in developing improved approaches to measuring food waste, understanding its determinants, and devising strategies to ultimately reduce it. To date, a majority of food waste studies have focused on household-level waste; fewer studies have examined waste in food distribution and retail settings, and very little work has been conducted to understand the economic causes and consequences of food loss at the farm level. This Choices theme presents a collection of articles that explore food loss and food waste in the context of the U.S. food supply chain. The behavior and incentives of a variety of food system stakeholders including producers, market intermediaries (including retailers), and consumers are considered. The articles are organized along the supply chain, beginning with upstream issues of food loss proceeding through downstream topics such as household decisions concerning when to discard food. Taken together, this collection offers intriguing insights into current frontiers of the myriad private and public efforts to better characterize, quantify, and reduce food waste.
Australian consumer acceptance of a technology that offers an alternative to physical castration should give more pork producers the confidence to use it, says one of Australia’s leading pork suppliers. The technology, known as immunological castration or immunocastration, involves administering a protein compound that works like a vaccine to reduce the risk of boar taint, an unpleasant odor that can occur when cooking meat from sexually mature male pigs. As a result, the country’s top-five integrated producers — accounting for about 60% of the industry — all now use the vaccine.“In terms of [consumer] backlash around the technology, it’s just been proven to be a non-event in Australia,” he said.“Consumers deem it as safe and they have other things on their mind, such animal welfare, antibiotics use and GM (genetically modified) technology.”Now that Australia has proven success with the technology, there was no reason why other countries couldn’t learn from the country’s experiences, he added.
Ashley Tyrner, founder and CEO of Farmbox Direct, is out to change how Americans eat. The service delivers fresh produce straight to your door, making healthy diets more accessible. "I had a really hard time having accessibility to fresh fruits and vegetablesthat were great, organic produce," Tyrner told TODAY's Jill Martin. "And it turns out, across the country, I'm not the only person with this problem."After a difficult period in her personal life, Tyrner was left in such severe financial distress that she went on government assistance, including food stamps — but the help only gave her $8 a day to live off of."I was thinking like, "What am I gonna do?'" said Tyrner. "And so when I think of, what lives within me that's pushed me to here is hustle."Eventually, Tyrner was able to save up enough to get off of government assistance. But now, she was still a single parent with a busy schedule, and found that she didn't have a lot of time to spend shopping for healthy foodfor her vegetarian daughter.Once again, she saved and hustled to do what she had to do. In 2014, Tyrner left her job and began to build her company from the ground up, even delivering items herself to people's home as she tried to get the business off the ground.
The U.S. dairy industry — and the U.S. economy — could be hit with anywhere from $9.5 billion to $20-billion in revenue losses if the European Union is successful in expanding restrictions on the use of generic cheese terms like parmesan, asiago, feta and others, according to a new study conducted by Informa Agribusiness Consulting, commissioned by the Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC). The study, which provides timely information in light of U.S.-EU trade negotiations, examined the potential impact the EU’s aggressive geographical indications (GI) agenda would have if imposed on a broad variety of U.S. cheeses and markets. Seizing the common names that U.S. marketers have used for generations would confuse and alienate both domestic and international consumers, leading to a dramatic drop in demand for U.S. cheese. If the EU’s GI initiatives were to be enforced on U.S. cheeses, the study — conducted by Informa Agribusiness Consulting — predicts that the dairy industry could see a dramatic drop in demand for U.S. cheeses, with prices falling 14% and resulting revenue losses of between $9.5 billion and $20.2 billion, depending on consumers’ willingness to pay for recognizable cheese names.