Search

Abstract: Beef trim, the primary component of ground beef, is tested by both the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and meat packers for Escherichia coli O157:H7 under a zero tolerance standard. We compare and contrast the process control and filtering roles of this testing on costs and food safety outcomes. Both of these roles of testing have been alternatively emphasized in recent legislative proposals and policy statements on beef trim testing. In the process control role, test design – including the decisions to increase sample sizes, re-test lots, and change tolerance thresholds – only affects the cost of implementing a targeted food safety standard, but does not directly affect health outcomes. In contrast, in the filtering role, test design influences the likelihood of errors and directly affects health outcomes. Neither role eliminates all risk from this pathogen. More broadly, we discuss the incentives food producers face to increase their frequency of testing and improve food safety processes in response to positive test findings as the process control role emphasizes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Despite considerable scientific evidence about the health risks of drinking unpasteurized (raw) milk, advocates continue to lobby for the reduction of state regulatory restrictions on the sale of unpasteurized milk. Multivariate analyses were performed on 1998-1999, 2002-2003 and 2006-2007 FoodNet Population Survey data to determine char-acteristics of unpasteurized milk consumers. Across all years of the survey, 3.4% of respondents reported consuming unpasteurized milk at some point in the previous seven days. Our findings indicate that unpasteurized milk drinkers in the states covered by the analysis are more likely to be Hispanic, less educated and of lower income than non-drinkers and they are more likely to report drinking unpasteurized juice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: There are few peer-reviewed or major published studies that estimate the total amount of food loss in developed countries and even fewer attempt to estimate the monetary value. We compiled estimates of the amount and value of food loss for more than 200 individual foods in the United States using the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service’s Loss-Adjusted Food Availability data and then aggregated these values to estimate the total value of food loss and the value by food group. The results indicate that in 2008, the estimated total value of food loss at the retail and consumer levels in the United States as purchased at retail prices was $165.6billion. The top three food groups in terms of the value of food loss at these levels are: meat, poultry, and fish (41%); vegetables (17%); and dairy products (14%). Looking more closely at the estimates for the consumer level, this level of loss translates into almost 124kg (273lb) of food lost from human consumption, per capita, in 2008 at an estimated retail price of $390/capita/year. Food loss represents a significant share of household food expenditures: our estimates suggest that the annual value of food loss is almost 10% of the average amount spent on food per consumer in 2008 and over 1% of the average disposable income. This consumer level loss translates into over .3kg (0.7lb) of food per capita per day valued at $1.07/day. Our estimates of the total value of food loss in the United States and loss estimates by food group are useful in that they can generate awareness of the issue among the food industry members, governments, and consumers. Potential large-scale approaches and economic incentives to mitigate food loss in developed countries are also discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Food loss at the retail and consumer levels in the United States includes 14.8 billion pounds of fruit and 23.4 billion pounds of vegetables, valued at $15.1 billion and $27.7 billion, respectively, in 2008 retail market prices. The total value of these losses is $42.8 billion per year, or roughly $141 per capita. To most efficiently reduce the annual food loss, it may be beneficial to focus efforts on the four fruits (fresh apples, grapes, peaches and strawberries) and four vegetables (fresh and canned tomatoes and fresh and frozen potatoes) that have the greatest amount of loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights the scientific evidence to date on a variety of nanotechnology issues important to consumers with a focus on food applications. Nanotechnology is technology at the atomic or macromolecular levels on the scale of approximately 1–100 nm. There are unlimited potential applications of nanotechnology for food, dietary supplements and food contact materials. However, there are more questions than answers about the safety risks of nanotechnology, its environmental, health and other impacts, and its costs and benefits. Benefits and costs will likely be specific to the nanomaterials used, the application and other conditions (e.g., temperature). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study by on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) refusals of food imports during the period between 1998 and 2004 due to FDA law violations. The FDA rules cover issues including product adulteration and misbranding. The research is aimed at examining food import growth in the country and the relationship between import refusals and economic development of exporting countries.

A study of food poisoning jury verdicts in 32 states (1988-1997) revealed that plaintiffs won awards in food poisoning jury trials 31% of the time, and received a median award of $25,560. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine the effects of various factors on food poisoning jury verdicts and on the size of the award. The odds of a plaintiff victory increased if a foodborne pathogen or illness was specified, and decreased if defendants had "deep pockets" or used medical expert testimony. Illnesses involving hospitalization, death, or chronic complications received higher awards than other illnesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the reasons for and against using foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination and discusses the policy dilemma countries face when new outbreaks occur. Epidemiology of the disease; Consequences of FMD; Problem with emergency vaccination; Possible effects of an outbreak in the United States.

Focuses on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BVE) or mad cow disease crisis in Great Britain. Cause of BVE in Great Britain cattles; Number of cattles diagnosed with BVE as of March 2001; Potential correlation between BVE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans; Effect of the BVE news in 1996 on the domestic sales of British beef products; Actions taken by the United States government to ensure the safety of its beef products.

Focuses on the effect of standards and regulations on food trade and safety in the twenty-first century. Reasons for international differences in food safety measures; Food safety measures in multilateral trading system; Multilateral coordination mechanisms and private systems approaches; Food safety and trade issues.

Data on the U.S. food supply--that is, amounts of food available for consumption--have been maintained by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) since 1909. These data are used to measure time trends in per-capita food availability, estimate nutrient content of the food supply, and compare American diets to recommendations. USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) annually updates food supply data; the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion uses the data to estimate nutrient availability. Additionally, ERS calculates per capita food servings, as defined by the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and USDA's MyPyramid. These food serving data most closely approximate actual intake because they adjust for plate waste and other food losses. However, many of the conversion factors used to account for amounts of food wasted or lost at the farm, retail, institutional, or consumer level are in need of updating and validating. Plans for improvement are underway to refine and restructure the data to more closely estimate actual per capita consumption. Cooperative agreements and grants are in place to refine the conversion factors estimates. These data series are available on the ERS website, which is being restructured to increase usability, via switching to more flexible software and expanding the capability of the custom query options to make a wider array graphs and tables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the costs of satisfying MyPyramid fruit and vegetable guidelines, with a focus on whether low-income households can bear these costs. Design: Descriptive analysis of the 2008 National Consumer Panel with information on the food purchases of 64,440 households across the contiguous United States was used to analyze the cost of fruits and vegetables. Costs per MyPyramid cup-equivalents were calculated by accounting for cooking yields and the portion of a food item's retail weight that is inedible. Variables Measured: Costs per cup-equivalent for less expensive fruits and vegetables by MyPyramid subgroup including whole and cut fruit, fruit juice, dark green vegetables, orange vegetables, starchy vegetables, other vegetables, and legumes. Results: In 2008, a variety of fruits and vegetables was available for an average cost of SO.40 to SO.50 per cup-equivalent. MyPyramid fruit and vegetable recommendations could be satisfied at this cost level. Conclusions and Implications: Low-income Americans facing national average food prices can satisfy MyPyramid fruit and vegetable guidelines with a budget equal to the Thrifty Food Plan allocation to fruits and vegetables. However, many low-income households spend too much money on food that is low in fruit and vegetable content. Some money should be reallocated to fruits and vegetables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]