Want to get deathly ill at a funeral? Go to Wyoming.

William Mitchell College of Law student, Courtney Marshak, prepared this post.

 

The Wyoming state Senate recently approved House 8 Bill, known as the Traditional Food Act, during its first debate on the floor.  If the Act becomes law, people will be allowed to prepare food for public events without regulations such as packaging, labeling, licensing and inspection requirements.  Currently, those who plan to cook food at home and serve at public events are not exempt from these food safety rules.  If the bill passes, food will be allowed to be cooked at home for traditional events such as funerals, weddings, fundraisers and picnics free of regulation when the food is for families or nonpaying guests.

This sounds like a bad idea and State Senator Fred Emerich, R-Cheyenne, agrees.  Emerich voted against the bill. He recognizes that if a problem developed, it would be difficult to trace a food source without inspections.  Despite the fact that the director of the Cheyenne-Laramie County Health Department did speak against the measure at a recent Senate committee hearing, it appears the bill is likely to pass.  The Traditional Food Act has already passed the House. If the Senate approves it two more times the bill will go to Governor Matt Mead for his signature. 

Food cooked at home should stay at home.  Once the food enters the public arena, the public has the right to expect that the food they consume will be safe, just as they would at a restaurant.  Just because they are not paying for the food doesn’t mean they should be subjected to potentially life threatening hazardous foods.  The government should do what they can to make our food more safe, not less safe.  Wyoming residents, BEWARE.  Potluck food is bad enough without the increased threat of E Coli.

 

Thanks, Courtney!

Cert denied in Tyson Farms case

William Mitchell College of Law student, Phil Zarko, prepared this post.

Recently, the Supreme Court denied certiorari and will not hear a case from a Tennessee poultry producer against Tyson Farms, Inc.  The Supreme Court did not say why they will not hear the case, although the issue was not about whether there were violations, but (according to the Ag Law blog) “whether an injury to competition must be pleaded and proved to establish liability for violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, and also whether courts should have deferred to USDA decisions that a showing of injury is not required.”  Presumably that means that the plaintiff did not or could not show injury.

    In Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc., the plaintiff poultry farmer filed an action against the poultry processing firm under the Agricultural Fair Practices Act (AFPA), alleging unlawful interference and discrimination based on his membership in a growers' association, and the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), alleging that the firm engaged in unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices and subjected him to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.  The Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit by the District Court, holding that Terry failed to show on injury and therefore lacked standing to bring the case.

Thanks, Phil!

A new sort of condiment? What type of additive would you prefer on your burger or hot dog: bacteria or a viral mix?

William Mitchell College of Law student, Lisa McCormick, prepared this post.

While perusing some food blogs earlier this week, my attention was caught by a press release included on the US Food Safety blog, www.blog.usfoodsafety.com , concerning a new anti-Listeria product.  The US Food Safety Blog referred to the product Micocin^(R), a spray solution designed to control the growth of Listeria in packaged meat products.   Micocin^(R) was recently approved in Canada and granted GRAS status by the USDA providing for immediate use in both Canada and the US.  Micocin^(R) was developed from a strain of “naturally-occurring bacteria” Carnobacteria maltaromaticum.  In following an additional press release by Griffith Labs regarding Micocin^(R), I was particularly amused by the following:

“The Micocin bacteria culture is already being used in consumer food products and it has no effect on the flavour, texture or appearance of the products to which it is introduced, so consumers can be protected without the addition of extra chemicals or technical-sounding ingredients being added to the food label. “

It sounds as though we should feel “lucky” that we don’t have to be burdened by wondering what these “additives” are.  However, don’t get me wrong here, Listeriosis is a serious problem.  I just don’t know yet what I think about these additives because prior to reading this post, I didn’t know this was already occurring and used in the US.

Listeriosis is a serious infection with a significant mortality rate that is caused by eating food contaminated with the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes.  Controlling Listeria can be especially problematic in “ready to eat” foods found at deli counters, fast food establishments, etc.  Products affected can be ready to eat meats, poultry, dairy (including soft cheeses) and seafood.  

In the US, the FDA, USDA and CDC have made the prevention of Listeria the focus of several programs, prompting the research of development of innovative products or “food additives” to combat Listeriosis. In 2006, the FDA approved a product “LMP-102” consisting of 6 different viruses or “bacteriophages” that specifically target, infect and destroy Listeria monocytogenes.  The product is designed to be sprayed on ready to eat meats and poultry. 

Thanks, Lisa!

Minnesota Raw Milk Producer Back in Court

William Mitchell College of Law student Rebecca Coobs prepared this post.

On January 31, 2011, Minnesota dairy farmer Michael Hartmann appeared in a Sibley County courtroom for a Contempt of Court charge that was filed about one month after the court approved an embargo on his unpasteurized food products.  When Minnesota Department of Health officials went to Hartmann’s farm to exercise a condemnation order for the embargoed food, they discovered that the embargoed food had disappeared from the Hartmann Farm.  The food was embargoed in the summer of 2010 when Minnesota Health Department studies revealed Michael Hartmann’s unpasteurized milk and other products were to blame for 15 people falling ill with E. Coli and campylobacter infections.

Michael Hartmann has a history of regulation violations and with the most recent Contempt of Court charge, some are calling for criminal charges to be brought.  So far, criminal charges have not been filed against Hartmann.



More about the Hartmann case is available on the Winona Daily News website.

In addition, in September of 2010, Minnesota Senators Klobuchar and Franken cosponsored the Food Safety Accountability Act (Senate Bill No. 3767) that is currently pending on the Senate’s legislative calendar, to increase the penalty for a person who knowingly contaminates the food supply.  Such an act is currently a misdemeanor but the legislation would change the classification to a felony and penalize violators with a fine, imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

Thanks, Rebecca!

Post by William Mitchell College of Law student, Thomas Lauria

photo from freedigitalphotos.net

A recent study published online in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health analyzes the effects of a poor, or “processed,” diet on children’s IQs. 

The study analyzed data on almost 4000 children and found that children who were eating a poor diet (described as being high in fat and sugar)at age three had somewhat lower IQ's by the time they were eight and a half.  The children with this type of diet saw decreases in IQ from the time they were three until eight. 

Children with a “healthy diet” early on, or a lot of nutrient rich foods, saw slight increases in IQ by the time the children were older.  

Thanks, Thomas!

Kids don't care about calories on the menu

Post by William Mitchell College of Law student, Francis Chang

Reuters published an article online describing a recent study appearing in the International Journal of Obesity.  The study determined that children and adolescents noticed the calories posted on a menu, but that it didn’t affect the amount of calories ordered and consumed.   According to the newswire article,  the study found taste was actually the most important factor for children and teens, more than the amount of calories they were consuming.  This study was conducted in New York City, which was the first U.S. city to require fast food restaurants to post calorie information on their menus.

From Reuters:

The team gathered restaurant receipts and surveyed 427 parents and teenagers at fast-food restaurants both before and after mandatory labeling began in July 2008. . . .

[The study] found that after labeling began, 57% of New York teens surveyed said they noticed the calorie information and 9% said that the calorie information influenced their food choices. . . .

The study found that most teens underestimated the amount of calories they had purchased, “some by up to 466 calories.”

Digging deeper into the issue, I looked at the International Journal of Obesity study that was the source of information in the article.  The interesting thing about the study was that it was focused on restaurants located only in low-income areas of New York City. Furthermore, 90% of the subjects used in the study were from racial or ethnic minority groups.  Neither of these facts was mentioned in the article.   The fact that this study targeted low-income groups and that 90% of the study’s subjects were minorities seems like a very important factor that should have been mentioned. The article makes the study sound as if it applies to all kids and teens regardless of socioeconomic backgrounds, which may not be the case. 

In the end, it was an article that was misleading and disconcerting, since most people will use this newswire article as their source of knowledge instead of looking at the actual study conducted. 

Thanks, Francis!

Comfort Food and Depression Risk

Post by Jennifer Kalyuzhny (Jennifer is a Hamline University School of Law student participating in a food law seminar at William Mitchell College of Law)



photo from freedigitalphotos.net



On msnbc.com, a headline appearing in the section devoted to medical curiosities called The Body Odd declares, “Comfort food may spark a vicious cycle, study suggests.”  The author explains that a new study “shows that eating junk food is linked to depression.” 

However, this definitive language likely overstates the findings of the study.  For example, all data collected in the study relied on questionnaires sent out to participants twice a year who self-reported the levels of intake for various types of fats as well as clinical diagnoses of depression.  Such a questionnaire method cannot be completely accurate, as some participants may have forgotten their precise intake amounts in the previous six months or may misreport a diagnosis.  Furthermore, the researchers acknowledge that reverse causality may be a possibility, as “participants with sub-clinical depression at baseline might have changed their food habits because of their mood disorder.”  They also admit that although their findings do present a detrimental correlation between substances such as Trans fat and risk of depression, these finding need confirmation by further prospective studies and by trials. 

Thanks, Jennifer!