Is it just me or is a lot of food being recalled lately? Or maybe it's just that food has always been recalled, but we're just more aware of the news.

Whatever it is, the most recent news is that the FDA has issued an import alert on cantaloupe from Agropecuaria Montelibano, a Honduran grower and packer. Fruit from this company appears to be associated with a Salmonella Litchfield outbreak in the United States and Canada. Apparently, about 50 people have fallen ill.

I'm not exactly sure what an "import alert" is and whether that's better, worse, or not really associated with a total recall, but if you've got the orange-fleshed melons, check the sticker for the origin, and if there's no sticker, well, when in doubt, throw it out.

Okay, so giving a box of chocolates to your sweetheart on Valentine's Day is just about a requirement. If they don't get that big heart shaped box, there had better be a very good reason. If you're looking for a good reason not to give those chocolates, here is a great one.

There may be insect bits and or hairs in that chocolate. A CBS station in Dallas, TX tested boxes of the treats from several different candy companies. Among the brands chosen to be tested were Godiva, Russell Stover, and Whitman's. All brands tested had some kind of foreign object in them.

The good news is that all bits of icky stuff are ground up so finely that you'd never even know it was there. Apparently the FDA has regulations about this kind of thing. The FDA has limits on the amount of fragments that can be present in any sample. According to one company's spokesman, "It's really impossible to exclude hair, bugs and fibers from chocolate or any other natural food product."

I say, what I don't know won't hurt me. People ingest all kinds of weird/bad things all the time. Our stomachs and digestive systems were designed to deal with oddities, to a certain extent. I know I'm looking forward to my heart shaped box of chocolates!

After six years testing the safety of cloning, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed cloned animals fit for consumption.

Don't like it? Well, you don't have much of a choice. The FDA also decided that labels won't have to divulge whether or not they contain parts from cloned animals, because the ingredients are no different from that of animals raised the old-fashioned way. Besides, aside from the creep-out factor, most people probably wouldn't choose to eat a cloned animal to begin with; they cost ten times as much as your average, farm-raised cow or pig.

Americans should be used to to science and industry playing a starring role in our food choices. From pesticides to force-fed ducks to hormone-laden dairy products, it shouldn't be any surprise that cloned animals were the next step.

And our food is already meddled with, sometimes without our knowledge (ever wonder how you can perfectly fresh peaches and strawberries in the middle of February?), and sometimes quite obviously (plutots, anyone?) But while this shouldn't come as a shock, this newest agricultural development does seem like an eerie foreshadowing of events to come.

No wonder people are confused about diets and health. One week coffee is bad for you, the next it's good for you. One week fat is bad for you, but then we find out it depends on what kind of fat it is. One week it's bad to have too many carbs, the next week we find out we need carbs but they have to be the "good" kind.

Now it's salt in the news again. I think salt has always been called "bad" for you, especially if you have high blood pressure or other medical problems. And now the FDA is going to hold hearings on the white stuff.

It's not really the salt you shake on your foods (something I never do anymore) it's the salt already in the packaged foods we buy. According to statistics, 75% of the salt we get comes from packaged foods and not the stuff we add ourselves.

So, did you hear about the cooked shrimp that glowed in the dark? I realize that sounds like the set-up to a joke, but it's no joke. A Seattle man recently bought some cooked shrimp at his local Thriftway. He ate some of it and then left the rest sitting on his kitchen counter for a moment. When he came back he noticed that in the darkened kitchen the shrimp was glowing, "like a bright eerie light was shining on it."

The FDA has said that they have no plans of looking into the case of the glowing shrimp (sounds like a Nancy Drew mystery) as since no one got sick, it isn't a food safety issue. Apparently, this is not the first time that seafood has glowed in the dark. It is thought to be caused luminescent species of bacteria found in ocean waters that the shrimp picked up while they were alive.

[via Portland Food and Drink]
Photo link

We've all heard the warnings that pregnant women should steer clear of fish because of mercury concerns. The FDA recommends that pregnant and breast feeding women eat no more than 12 ounces of fish a week. Most of my pregnant friends have heeded that advice, giving up tilapia, salmon and trout almost entirely until their children are weened. However, the Washington Post reported today that a group of scientists from both the public and private sectors are planning to announce that they believe that pregnant women should eat AT LEAST 12 ounces of fish per week.

The issue comes down to mercury concerns verses nutrients in fish being excellent for brain development. Since the FDA issued the fish warning, mothers and mothers-to-be have dropped their fish intake to the point where they are no longer getting enough of the Omega-3 oils that are so helpful for baby development and the prevention of postpartum depression. So, what's the answer? At the present time, it's murky at best.

I'm usually glad to peruse tomorrow's New York Times headlines when it comes to food as I did last night. I say usually because last night the news I learned was rather disturbing. The FDA has issued an alert about the safety of five types of farm-raised seafood imported from China. It seems that multiple tests showed contamination from carcinogens and antibiotics.

The five types of seafood in question are shrimp, catfish, eel, basa (a type of catfish) and dace (Chinese mud carp). These fish will have to be tested before they can be sold in the U.S. The FDA noted that there's no immediate health threat, but that prolonged exposure could cause health problems. Somehow that doesn't make me feel very safe, probably because I've consumed more than a few cans of canned dace with black bean sauce in my day. And the ban may not be such good news for fish eaters in general, either. Chinese seafood accounts for 21 percent of all seafood imports. Shrimp lovers may be hit especially hard since it's the number one seafood imported from China.

At least, not unless you're absolutely 100% positively certain that it's actually not a puffer fish that was mislabeled as monkfish.

Two people in the Chicago area became seriously ill after eating homemade soup containing the mislabeled monkfish. The FDA analyzed the fish and confirmed that the fish, which was actually puffer fish, contained tetrodotoxin, a poison. If you have monkfish in your refrigerator or freezer, the FDA says to throw it out. In the meantime, the FDA is examining all imports from the Chinese company that supplied the mislabeled fish, and will take additional action, if needed.

Question: what if Hershey went from using cocoa butters in their chocolate to using vegetable fats and artificial sweeteners?

That's what might happen. They're asking the Food and Drug Administration to change the standards in which chocolate is made and classified, to "modernize" the making of chocolate. Hershey isn't the only company asking the question, it's everyone.

This is sacrilege! We all know that chocolate, even when its high in fat and calories, has a lot of health benefits too. And if people want to have diet chocolate or a chocolate substitute, there are plenty of products already on the market. Changing the taste of Hershey chocolate would be like changing America, damn it!

Check out this site to record your protest.

The New York Times reports (as did The CBS Evening News last night) that a House subcommittee is going to meet today to investigate not only all of the food recalls and contaminations of the past couple of years but to examine just how the FDA operates in general.

Evidence has come to light that the FDA may have been aware of the spinach and peanut butter contamination several months before the sicknesses occurred but didn't do as much as they could have. One problem is the resources. As CBS said, even though the FDA is responsible for 80% of the food in this country and the USDA for the other twenty, for some reason, the USDA has three times as many inspectors. The FDA has also been busier with the "D" part of their name in recent years.

There seems to have been a large number of food-related product recalls lately, and it has brought up some very valid questions. What happens when consumers don't hear about the recalls of products they have recently purchased, and equally frightening - what happens when the stores that sell these products aren't even aware? The FDA hopes to change that with a 6-month pilot program they are launching, designed to educate and assist consumers in identifying recalled products that could potentially pose significant health risks.

In the test program, they will mostly be focusing on the awareness of class I recalls - tainted products that could potentially cause serious adverse health consequences or death. These include foods contaminated with Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and more, plus those that contain food allergens ingredients such as nuts, soy, dairy, etc. In 2006 alone there were over 100 such recalls, though the average over the past 5 years is more like 188 - quite a significant number.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just issued a salmonella warning for some batches of Peter Pan peanut butter after linking more than 280 cases of food poisoning in 39 different states to the product. Con Agra, the manufacturer of the peanut butter, has already called for a recall, but unlike with the fresh veggies that were affected by an E. coli contamination last fall, the long shelf-life of peanut butter means that people who fail to check their jars at home could face problems at a later time. Fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps are common effects, but for those with autoimmune disorders or other serious medical conditions, salmonella infections can be life threatening.

All of the peanut butters in question are under the brand names "Peter Pan" and "Great Value" and bear the number 2111 at the beginning of the product code on the lid. They were all made at a single factory in Georgia. The first consumer that was affected by the peanut butter-borne salmonella became ill in August of 2006, so if you bought your peanut butter (assuming it's Peter Pan brand) around that time, or even a bit before, it is wise to throw it out and start with something fresh.

Unfortunately for those who are gluten-intolerant, the standards for gluten-free foods aren't exactly standard, so it can be risky when buying many foods, especially processed foods, at the store. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in charge of regulating the nutritional information that gets put on food labels and they have drafted a proposal that would set a standard definition for the term "gluten free" and set standards for food producers to follow to meet it.

"Currently there is neither a regulatory definition of the term 'gluten free,' nor is there agreement among manufacturers or consumers as to what this term means," said the FDA. Their new rules state that "gluten free" foods must not have any type of wheat, rye or barley, including hybrid grains that use them. They allow for the use of such grains if the gluten is completely removed before processing, however. The terms that will be imposed on those who violate the new guidelines, assuming that they are accepted, has yet to be determined. The FDA will take comments on the proposal (PDF) for several weeks before revising it and making their final ruling.

The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that "meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," meaning that not only is the meat likely to be approved for human consumption and sold at stores, but that there will be no label to distinguish it from natural meat. Consumer groups want to see a label on the meat because most (64%) people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating cloned food, but the FDA's decision is based on the fact that there is no food safety issue in question, and no need to "warn" people about what they're eating in this case. "The bottom line is, we don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," said one researcher, although this does seem to be at odds with existence of labels that indicate the difference between organic/nonorganic produce and grass fed beef, where there is not necessarily a health risk or benefit in question.

The Consumer Federation of America said that they, along with other groups, will ask food companies and supermarkets not to carry food from clones. "Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods."

Taco Bell has decided to recall all the green onions from all of its 5,800 locations in the US after an outbreak of at least 43 cases of E. coli infections in New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania last week. Testing revealed that they were a possible source of the bacteria, although other non-meat sources have not been ruled out yet. Samples of the cilantro, cheddar cheese, blended cheese, yellow onions, tomatoes and lettuce are being sent to FDA labs for testing and comparison to the green onion samples. The states were the infections occurred will be testing their own samples, and Taco Bell is likely to have scientists at work on their behalf, as well. The sources for the potentially contaminated foods are still being identified, but consumers (unless you just ate at a Taco Bell despite the potential health risk) should not worry too much about it because suppliers for large buyers such as Taco Bell rarely sell directly to supermarkets.