Tuesday, September 30, 2008

U.S. EPA seeks nearly $1 million from 99 Cents Only Stores for pesticide violations

U.S. EPA seeks nearly $1 million from 99 Cents Only Stores for pesticide violations

Release date: 09/30/2008

Contact Information: Margot Perez-Sullivan, (415) 947-4149, perezsullivan.margot@epa.gov

Store sold and distributed unregistered and misbranded products

LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint against 99 Cents Only Stores for the alleged sale and distribution of unregistered and misbranded pesticides in multiple stores operated by the company, a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

The EPA is seeking $969,930 in civil penalties from 99 Cents Only Stores for selling two unregistered pesticides, “Bref Limpieza y Desinfeccion Total” and “Farmer’s Secret Berry & Produce Cleaner,” and a misbranded pesticide, “PIC Boric Acid Roach Killer II.”

Bref Limpieza y Desinfeccion Total was imported from Mexico and made claims in Spanish that it disinfects or sanitizes surfaces. Farmer’s Secret Berry & Produce Cleaner claimed that it “inhibits mold, fungus & bacteria including E coli.” Products that make surface disinfection or sanitizer claims are considered pesticides and must be registered under federal law. The third product, PIC Boric Acid Roach Killer II, had labels on eleven containers that were either inside out or upside down making them difficult to read.

"No matter what price consumers pay for products like these, the products must be registered with the EPA and labeled correctly so consumers can use them properly," said Katherine Taylor, associate director of the Communities and Ecosystems Division in the EPA’s Pacific Southwest office. “All pesticides distributors -- discounters and high-end retailers alike -- must comply with the law. This company's apparent disregard for state and federal law in its business practices has led to this enforcement action.”

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Nevada Department of Agriculture discovered the violations during multiple inspections from 2004 to 2008.

FIFRA regulates the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides within the United States. Before selling or distributing a pesticide in the United States, companies must register the pesticide with the EPA. Each producer, seller and distributor is required by federal law to ensure that the registered pesticide is labeled according to agency requirements.

For more information on pesticide regulation and enforcement, please visit:www.epa.gov/pesticides/

Data Shows Unstable TVs, Furniture and Appliances Pose Deadly Danger to Children

Data Shows Unstable TVs, Furniture and Appliances Pose Deadly Danger to Children

Found in various rooms of the home, large furniture such as TVs, chests, armoires, and appliances are staples in our homes. But these items can tip over and crush children, causing injury or death. Last year, CPSC identified this issue as one of the “top five hidden home hazards.” A new data report (pdf) from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff shows at least 180 tip-over related deaths between 2000 and 2006, 80 percent involving children younger than 10. The report also indicates that between 2005 and 2006 there were at least 40 reports of television or television and furniture related tip-over deaths.

These deaths and injuries frequently occur when children climb onto, fall against or pull themselves up on television stands, shelves, bookcases, dressers, desks, chests and stove oven doors. Televisions placed on top of furniture can tip over and cause a child to suffer traumatic and sometimes fatal injuries.

“Tip-over related deaths continue to be a problem. These tragedies can be prevented by taking precautions,” said Acting Chairman Nancy Nord.

To help prevent tip-over hazards, CPSC recommends the following safety tips below:

Verify that furniture is stable on its own.
For added security, anchor all entertainment units, TV stands, bookcases, shelving and bureaus to the wall or floor using appropriate hardware, such as brackets, screws, or toggles.
Place televisions on sturdy furniture appropriate for the size of the TV or on a low-rise base.
Push the TV as far back as possible from the front of its stand.
Place electrical cords out of a child's reach, and teach children not to play with the cords.
Remove items from the top of the TV and furniture that might tempt kids to climb, such as toys and remote controls.

EPA Region 7 Urges Parents to Contact Health Department Following Mercury Spill at Skate Park in Pittsburg, Kan

EPA Region 7 Urges Parents to Contact Health Department Following Mercury Spill at Skate Park in Pittsburg, Kan.

Parents of children who may have been exposed to toxic elemental mercury that was recently spilled on a Pittsburg, Kan., skate park are being strongly urged to immediately contact the Crawford County Health Department so that their children can receive health screenings.

Emergency responders from EPA Region 7, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kansas Fire Marshal's Office, Pittsburg Police Department and the Crawford County Health Department were working together today to investigate and assess mercury exposures that may have resulted from the spill, which was reported late Monday at the Pitt Skate Park in Pittsburg's Schlanger Park.

According to reports, a man told police that a young boy poured some quantity of the toxic chemical on the playground. The contaminated area was roped off and will remain closed until a thorough decontamination process is completed.

Meanwhile, police and health authorities are working to identify any individuals who may have come into contact with the spilled mercury so that they can receive health screenings, and if necessary, so that any mercury-contaminated homes, clothing or belongings can be properly decontaminated or disposed.

Elemental mercury is a shiny, silvery metal that is liquid at room temperature. It is often found in thermometers, barometers, thermostats, electrical switches, and science labs. When dropped, it can break into smaller droplets that can migrate into cracks and crevices, and become attached to shoes, clothing or skin. Mercury can cause serious health effects, especially for young children, when its vapor is breathed, or when it comes into contact with skin.

Parents who think their children may have been exposed to mercury spilled at Pitt Skate Park are urged to keep their children confined, and immediately contact Janis Goedeke, Health

Officer with the Crawford County Health Department, at 620-231-5411, to arrange for a health screening.

U.S. EPA takes action against Eqyss International to protect horses and owners from unregistered pesticides

U.S. EPA takes action against Eqyss International to protect horses and owners from unregistered pesticides

Contact Information: Margot Perez-Sullivan, (415) 947-4149, perezsullivan.margot@epa.gov

Horse products company required to pay $72,000 fine

LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined Eqyss International Inc., a Vista, Calif., retailer of horse care supplies, $72,000 for distributing four unregistered pesticides in violation of federal pesticide law.

The EPA determined that the company distributed four pesticides that were not registered with the Agency as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

The illegal products included:
· Marigold Spray and Marigold Mist, two products intended to repel flies from horses;· Anti-Microbial Wrap and Blanket Wash, a product intended to kill germs and bacteria on tack and bedding for horses;· McNasty Anti-Chewing Spray, a product intended to prevent unwanted chewing by horses.

“Without proper labeling and registration, these illegal pesticides could endanger horses and their owners," said Katherine Taylor, the Associate Director of the EPA's Communities and Ecosystems Division for the Pacific Southwest region. “EPA's responsibility is to make sure that products claiming to be pesticides have been properly evaluated, and are labeled so that consumers can use them safely.”

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation discovered the products during inspections at several retail establishments in the state. The EPA then completed the investigation with an inspection at the company’s headquarters in December 2007.

Manufacturers who claim their products prevent, destroy or repel any pest must register the products as pesticides with the EPA. The Agency will not register a pesticide until it has been tested to show that it will not pose an unreasonable risk when used according to the directions.

Consumers should be careful to look for the EPA registration number printed on product labels, and to follow the directions for use.

For more information on pesticide regulation and enforcement, please visit the EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/fifra/

EPA fines Super Store Industries for failing to notify response authorities after hazardous chemical release

EPA fines Super Store Industries for failing to notify response authorities after hazardous chemical release

Contact Information: Wendy Chavez, 415/947-4248, chavez.wendy@epa.gov

Agency seeks $20,000 after delay in reporting ammonia leak

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently fined Super Store Industries $20,280 for failing to immediately notify the proper authorities after an ammonia release at its facility located at 199 Red Top Road in Fairfield, Calif..

On Aug. 25, 2007, approximately 242 pounds of anhydrous ammonia leaked into the environment within a 24-hour period. The company notified the California Office of Emergency Services 11 hours later, the Solano County Health Services Division 33 hours later, and the National Response Center 93 days later.

Federal law requires immediate notification of a reportable release in order for emergency response teams to evaluate the nature and extent of a hazardous substance release, prevent exposure and minimize consequences. The reportable quantity for ammonia is 100 pounds.

“Companies put first responders and others at risk when they don’t immediately report toxic chemical releases,” said Dan Meer, the EPA’s Superfund associate director for the Pacific Southwest region. “This information needs to be provided quickly so that authorities can take the proper precautions in responding to an emergency.”

An equipment failure in a refrigeration unit allowed the release of anhydrous ammonia. The company has since made modifications at the facility and changed notification procedures to ensure that any future accidental releases would be easier to curtail and immediately reported.

Exposure to high concentrations of ammonia can cause severe burns on the skin, eyes, throat and lungs. Breathing low levels of ammonia can cause coughing, as well as nose and throat irritation. Ammonia also plays a role in the formation of particulate air pollution, which has been linked to numerous health problems, including chronic bronchitis and lung disease.

For more information on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, please visit: http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/index.htm

Monday, September 29, 2008

The FDA is sifting safety data on Johnson & Johnson's EPOETIN drug

The FDA is sifting safety data on Johnson & Johnson's epoetin drug, which has come under a red flag thanks to a German stroke study.

The study was testing high doses of Eprex (sold in the U.S. as Procrit) as a treatment for stroke patients. But it turns out that patients taking the J&J anemia drug appeared more likely to die than patients treated with placebo were. Some 14 percent of the Eprex patients died, versus 9 percent of the control group.

J&J took a proactive stance on this data: It notified the FDA of the findings last week. Now, the agency is taking a look at the German trial. It's also going to monitor several other ongoing trials that are testing the neurological effects of epoetin alfa, which also is sold by Amgen under the name Epogen.

As you know, this isn't the first time anemia drugs have come under the safety spotlight. In July, the FDA added warnings to this class of meds, aimed at limiting their use in cancer patients.

Studies had shown that the drugs might cause tumors to spread and raise the risk of bleeding, too. Patients whose cancer is curable shouldn't use them, an FDA advisory panel said.

Friday, September 26, 2008

FDA Updates Health Information Advisory on Melamine Contamination

FDA Updates Health Information Advisory on Melamine Contamination

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting consumers that seven Mr. Brown instant coffee and milk tea products are being recalled by the Taiwanese company, King Car Food Industrial Co. Ltd., due to possible contamination with melamine.

The recalled products are:
Mr. Brown Mandheling Blend Instant Coffee (3-in-1)
Mr. Brown Arabica Instant Coffee (3-in-1)
Mr. Brown Blue Mountain Blend Instant Coffee (3-in-1)
Mr. Brown Caramel Macchiato Instant Coffee (3-in-1)
Mr. Brown French Vanilla Instant Coffee (3-in-1)
Mr. Brown Mandhling Blend instant Coffee (2-in-1)
Mr. Brown Milk Tea (3-in-1)

The FDA recommends that consumers not consume any of the above Mr. Brown instant coffee and milk tea products. The FDA also recommends that retailers and foodservice operators remove the products from sale or service.

As of September 25, 2008, the FDA testing of milk based products imported into the United States from China has not found melamine contamination.

The FDA is working with regulatory agencies in other countries. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority reports that its testing of White Rabbit Creamy Candies has shown melamine contamination at high levels. In light of the widespread contamination of milk and milk-based products in China and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s finding, the FDA recommends that consumers not eat White Rabbit Creamy Candy and that retailers and foodservice operations remove the product from sale or service.To date, the FDA is not aware of any illnesses in the United States stemming from consumption of either White Rabbit Creamy Candy or the Mr. Brown instant coffee and milk tea products.

Individuals who have experienced any health problems after consuming either White Rabbit Creamy Candy or any of the identified Mr. Brown coffee and tea products are advised to contact their health care professional.

BackgroundOn September 12, 2008, in light of reports from China of melamine contaminated infant formula, the FDA issued a Health Information Advisory to assure the American public that there is no known threat of contamination in infant formula manufactured by companies that have met the requirements to sell such products in the United States. That advisory also warned members of Chinese communities in the United States that infant formula manufactured in China, possibly available for purchase at Asian markets, could pose a risk to infants.

The FDA had contacted the companies who manufacture infant formula for distribution in the United States and received, from the companies, information that they are not importing formula or sourcing milk-based materials from China.

At the same time, the FDA—in conjunction with state and local officials—began a nation-wide investigation to check Asian markets for Chinese manufactured infant formula that may have been brought into the United States. In particular, this effort focused on areas of the country with large Chinese communities, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and New York. To date, investigators have visited more than 1,400 retail markets and have not found Chinese infant formula present on shelves in these markets.

The FDA also advises consumers not to purchase infant formula manufactured in China from Internet sites or from other sources.

The FDA has taken, and will continue to take, proactive measures to help ensure the safety of the American food supply. In conjunction with state and local officials, the FDA will continue to check Asian markets for food items that are imported from China and that could contain a significant amount of milk or milk proteins. In addition, the FDA has broadened its domestic and import sampling and testing of milk-derived ingredients and finished food products containing milk, such as candies, desserts, and beverages that could contain these ingredients from Chinese sources. Milk-derived ingredients include whole milk powder, non-fat milk powder, whey powder, lactose powder, and casein.

In addition to state and local governments, the FDA is working in close cooperation with Customs and Border Protection within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, other federal agencies, and foreign governments.

FDA Warns Companies to Stop Marketing Unapproved Ophthalmic Balanced Salt Solution Drug Products

FDA Warns Companies to Stop Marketing Unapproved Ophthalmic Balanced Salt Solution Drug Products and Topical Drug Products Containing Papain

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced that companies marketing unapproved ophthalmic balanced salt solutions (BSS) and unapproved topical drug products containing papain must stop manufacturing and marketing these products or risk enforcement action.

FDA is taking these actions because it has received reports of serious adverse events associated with their uses.

Companies must stop manufacturing unapproved BSS products on or before Nov. 24, 2008, and must stop shipping such unapproved products on or before Jan. 21, 2009. After these dates, all topical products containing papain must have FDA approval to be manufactured or shipped in interstate commerce.

Companies that continue to market unapproved topical papain products after these dates may be subject to immediate FDA enforcement action, such as seizure and/or injunction against the company.

Today's action does not affect approved ophthalmic BSS products.

Companies marketing any unapproved topical drug products containing papain must stop manufacturing them on or before November 24, 2008. Companies or others engaged in shipping these products must stop shipping these products on or before Jan. 21, 2009. After these dates, all topical products containing papain must have FDA approval to be manufactured or shipped in interstate commerce. Companies that continue to market unapproved topical papain products after these dates may be subject to immediate FDA enforcement action, such as seizure and/or injunction against the company.

No topical drug product containing papain has been approved by the FDA.

Companies that do not comply with the designated timelines may face further FDA action, including enforcement action. If FDA takes enforcement action against a company that continues to market an unapproved product after the stated timeframes, the FDA may simultaneously take additional action regarding any other violative products that the company may be marketing, including any other unapproved drugs.

"These unapproved products have put consumers health in jeopardy, from reports of permanent vision loss with unapproved balanced salt solutions to a serious drop in blood pressure and increased heart rate from the topical papain products," said Janet Woodcock, M.D., director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Consumers need to be assured that all drug products are manufactured according to the high quality standards required for FDA approval and that they are safe and effective."

About Unapproved Ophthalmic Balanced Salt Solutions (BSS):Ophthalmic balanced salt solutions are used to irrigate the eye during surgery on the eye, including cataract and other ocular procedures. FDA has received reports of serious injuries to the eye from unapproved ophthalmic BSS. Users of these unapproved products have reported to FDA injuries including eye inflammation, cloudy vision, and permanent loss of visual acuity. Inspection of these products revealed contaminants and other product defects. Thus, FDA urges doctors and others who use these products to switch to approved versions of BSS made by Alcon and Akorn. FDA oversight of the manufacturing of ophthalmic BSS products helps to ensure that they are properly made and to reduce the risk of contamination and associated injuries.

About Unapproved Topical Papain Products:Topical drug ointments containing papain are used to remove dead or contaminated tissue in acute and chronic lesions, such as diabetic ulcers, pressure ulcers, varicose ulcers, and traumatic infected wounds.

Trade names for these products include Accuzyme, Allanfil, Allanzyme, Ethezyme, Gladase, Kovia, Panafil, Pap Urea, and Ziox.

Other products are marketed under the names of the active ingredients, for instance, papain-urea ointment.

The FDA is taking action today against these products because it has received reports of serious adverse events in patients using products containing papain. Reports include hypersensitivity (allergic) reactions that lead to hypotension (low blood pressure) and tachycardia (rapid heart rate). In addition, patients who are allergic to latex can also be allergic to papaya, the source of papain. Therefore, patients with latex sensitivity may be at increased risk of suffering an adverse reaction to a topical papain drug product.

FDA urges consumers who are using topical drug products containing papain, and who have questions or concerns, to contact their health care provider about discontinuing treatment with these products. There are a number of FDA-approved topical products that have been found safe and effective as wound healing agents and that do not contain papain.

"Removing unapproved topical drug products containing papain and unapproved ophthalmic balanced salt solutions is yet another step forward for patient safety," said Deborah M. Autor, director, Office of Compliance for CDER, FDA.

These actions are part of FDA’s unapproved drugs initiative. That initiative seeks to ensure that all drug products marketed in the United States are shown, through the drug approval process, to be safe and effective and to meet appropriate standards for manufacturing and labeling. This represents the eighth and ninth actions taken by the agency against a class of unapproved drugs since issuing a compliance policy guide (CPG) on marketed unapproved drugs in June 2006. The
CPG describes FDA’s risk-based enforcement approach to marketed unapproved drugs.

To read FDA’s Compliance Policy Guide (CPG): http://www.fda.gov/cder/Guidance/6911fnl.htm.

Monday, September 22, 2008

EU confident over melamine dairy protection

EU confident over melamine dairy protection

As some of the world’s leading dairy groups attempt to play down their potential involvement in the Chinese melamine scandal, the European Commission says that its existing import rules on the country’s dairy goods remain sufficient.

News reports have claimed that a number of countries across Asia, and even the US, have either banned or are stepping up monitoring of China-sourced dairy products from yoghurts to ice cream over fears they could contain milk contaminated with the chemical.

Over the weekend both Nestle and Arla Foods, two of the bloc’s major players in dairy goods manufacture, played up their quality control measures employed through their Chinese joint ventures, in a bid to prevent the chemical appearing in the food chain.

Final product vigilance
Amidst these concerns, a spokesperson for the European Commission told DairyReporter.com that imports of Chinese milk and other dairy products were not allowed into the bloc due to their lack of an approved residue by the country’s authorities.

The spokesperson claimed that under these regulations, no infant milk powders were presently on the European market, though still it called for vigilance amongst finished product companies.
“With regard to composite products containing milk derived products, it is the responsibility of the food business operators to guarantee the safety of all ingredients and of member states to control,” stated the Commission.

Melamine fears
The melamine scandal, which has now been linked to kidney problems in 6,000 Chinese children, is alleged to involve a number of dairy groups operating in China, such as Sanlu and Arla Mengniu.

Melamine is a chemical that can make it appear there is more protein in a product, and has been linked to causing kidney stones and other health problems.

Sanlu, itself owned partly by New Zealand-based giant Fonterra, says it had purchased the contaminated milk from third-party suppliers, with neither Sanlu or Fonterra employees though to be involved.

Other companies linked to involvement in the contamination have attempted to distance themselves from the scandal though.

Company testing
Nestle itself has actively denied allegations emerging in Honk Kong that samples of its growing up milk had tested positive for traces of the chemical.

The company claimed that it was confident that its product sold on the Chinese market were melamine free, citing Hong Kong health official’s testing that found its Neslac Gold 1+ did not pose a health risk linked to the chemical.

“In general terms, melamine is found throughout the food chain across the world in minute traces which do not represent any health risk for consumers,” the company stated. “There is a generally accepted tolerable daily intake of melamine in food in the EU (0.5mg/kg of body weight/day) and in the US (0.63mg/kg of body weight/day).”

Nestle claimed that as part of its general practice, more than 70 safety tests are carried out on infant formula and milk products as a matter of routine.

Arla Foods meanwhile, said that it had itself called for a temporary halt to production facilities related to its joint venture with Mengniu last week, along with removing a ‘limited’ batch of products from shelves.

The company added that it was sending analyzing equipment like those used in its European operations to its Mengniu joint venture operations before it would again start up production in China in a bid to quell consumer fears.

“The milk is tested for many of the same properties that Arla Foods tests for in Denmark and Sweden – fat, protein and antibiotics,” the company said in a statement. “So far, milk has not been tested for melamine, but testing will begin when production starts up again.”

US fears
As within the EU, US Authorities have also stressed their belief that no contaminated milk powders are currently thought to be on the market, though it was stepping up its own monitoring precautions, the Associated Press reported.

Over the weekend, The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert warning against purchasing milk products from online, the report stated.

Consumers fear the packaging - a BPA alternative is needed now

Consumers fear the packaging - a BPA alternative is needed now

Unless European and US manufacturers follow the example of their Japanese counterparts and implement measures to reduce or replace BPA, they could find that its their consumers who ‘strike back’.

Proponents of BPA, the resin found in the linings of canned food and baby bottles, maintain its safety. The plastic and food packaging industries argue that the compound is cost effective and durable and that there are no effective alternatives. But is the evidence against BPA beginning to stack up?

Two recent reports underline consumer anxiety about the chemical.

Earlier this month, scientists from the US National Toxicology Programme said that effects on reproductive development from BPA in packaging cannot be ruled out and a study released last week by UK scientists linked the chemical to diabetes and heart disease.

That is in addition to the 100 other studies that have found the chemical to be an endocrine disrupter or damaging to behavioural and neural development.

The US and European regulators say the correct safety thresholds are in place. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week admitted that more research is needed to clear up the lingering questions.

But whether concerns about BPA turn out to be justified, shoppers are already buying BPA-free baby bottles and the large retailers are phasing out products containing the chemical.

Canada is now taking a precautionary approach and has decided to take steps to limit human exposure to BPA, starting with a ban on baby bottles that use it.

And an expert writing in the Washington Post recently recommended that consumers eat more fresh or frozen foods to avoid the BPA found in canned food linings and use polycarbonate plastic bottles for cold or room-temperature fluids only.

These concerns deserve a considered response. The Darth Vader approach, dismissing the problem with the words: “I find your lack of faith disturbing” will not serve the industry well – or its customers.

If customers don’t want this chemical in their bottles and cans, an alternative packaging component will have to be found.

Hasn’t the food industry already experienced the power of consumer resistance to an ingredient and been forced to act?

Processors, prompted by consumer concern, have been seeking natural alternatives to synthetic colours since the public outcry that followed the Southampton Study, which implicated additives in hyperactivity in children.

Likewise, food and drink manufacturers in Europe and the US would better serve their customers by erring on the side of safety.

The should try to develop, in tandem with the chemical companies, an alternative to BPA for can linings or, at the very least, reduce dramatically the amount of the resin used in the packaging.
Japanese food and drink companies have already done so.

Due to consumer concern about the toxic effects of BPA, Japanese manufacturers voluntarily reduced the use of BPA in packaging between 1998 and 2003.

They replaced EXR coating with PET film lamination on the inner surface of cans or used an EXR paint that had much less BPA migration into food instead.

And following these reduction and replacement moves, a team of assessors claim that virtually no BPA is found in canned foods and drinks in Japan now.

Meanwhile, Eden, a food manufacturer in Michigan, said that it uses an enamel lining made from the oil and resin extracted from plants instead of BPA on the inner surface of its cans of peas.

The company concedes this lining is more expensive to produce than BPA but, surely, consumers would be willing to absorb a slightly higher price tag for packaging they can trust.

There must be a way to improve safety standards. Could the Jedi Knight’s lightsabre teach a valuable lesson? Designed for defence, it protected the user by offering swift and decisive intervention. Shouldn’t food companies act now, with similar speed and resolution, to end once and for all concerns about Bisphenol A?

Saturday, September 20, 2008

FDA Proposes Label Requirements for Refused Imported Foods

FDA Proposes Label Requirements for Refused Imported Foods

Measure would further protect the nation’s food supply

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a proposed rule designed to reduce a practice known as "port shopping" which puts the safety of imported food at risk.

"This system will make it more difficult for food importers to evade import controls after being denied admission into the United States," said Randall Lutter, Ph.D., deputy commissioner for policy. "It will complement our ongoing efforts to monitor food imports."

When FDA refuses to admit a food into the United States, the food must be exported or destroyed. But some persons attempt to bring the refused food back into the United States in the same condition by shipping it to another U.S. port in hopes that the food will be admitted there.

The proposed regulation would require that shipping containers of food barred from entry, and any accompanying documents, be labeled as refused. The label would make it easier for FDA to detect previously-refused food.

The proposed rule implements a provision of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which provided the FDA with new authority to protect the nation’s food supply.

Under the proposed rule, all owners or consignees of refused food would be required to affix a label to the shipping container that reads: "UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY" in clear, conspicuous, print. A label would also have to be affixed to all documents accompanying the imported food such as invoices, bills of lading, and electronic documents.

The FDA will accept comment on the proposed regulation for 75 days following its publication in the Federal Register. Written comments may be submitted to:http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FDA-2007-N-0465

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Plastics chemical tied to heart disease, diabetes

Plastics chemical tied to heart disease, diabetes

A study has for the first time linked a common chemical used in everyday products such as plastic drink containers and baby bottles to health problems, specifically heart disease and diabetes.

Until now, environmental and consumer activists who have questioned the safety of bisphenol A, or BPA, have relied on studies showing harm from exposure in laboratory animals.

But British researchers, who published their findings on Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, analyzed urine and blood samples from 1,455 U.S. adults aged 18 to 74 who
were representative of the general population.

Using government health data, they found that the 25 percent of people with the highest levels of bisphenol A in their bodies were more than twice as likely to have heart disease and, or diabetes compared to the 25 percent of with the lowest levels.

"Most of these findings are in keeping with what has been found in animal models," Iain Lang, a researcher at the University of Exeter in Britain who worked on the study, told a news conference.

"This is the first ever study (of this kind) that has been in the general population," Lang said.

Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry group, said the design of the study did not allow for anyone to conclude BPA causes heart disease and diabetes.

"At least from this study, we cannot draw any conclusion that bisphenol A causes any health effect. As noted by the authors, further research will be needed to understand whether these statistical associations have any relevance at all for human health," Hentges said in a telephone interview.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel of outside experts on Tuesday will hear testimony on health effects from BPA as it reviews a draft report it issued last month calling BPA safe.

"The study, while preliminary with regard to these diseases in humans, should spur U.S. regulatory agencies to follow recent action taken by Canadian regulatory agencies, which have declared BPA a 'toxic chemical' requiring aggressive action to limit human and environmental exposures," Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri and John Peterson Myers of the nonprofit U.S.-based Environmental Health Sciences, wrote in a commentary accompanying the study.

BOTTLES TO UTENSILS
BPA is used to make polycarbonate plastic, a clear shatter-resistant material in products ranging from baby and water bottles to plastic eating utensils to sports safety equipment and medical devices.

It also is used to make durable epoxy resins used as the coating in most food and beverage cans and in dental fillings.

People can consume BPA when it leaches out of plastic into liquid such as baby formula, water or food inside a container.

In the study, the team said the chemical is present in more than 90 percent of people, suggesting there is not much that can be done to avoid the chemical of which over 2.2 million tonnes is
produced each year.

The researchers, who will also present their findings at the U.S. FDA session on Tuesday, added it was too early to identify a mechanism through which the chemical may be doing harm.

Animal studies have suggested the chemical may disrupt hormones, especially estrogen.

The researchers also cautioned that these findings are just the first step and more work is needed to determine if the chemical actually is a direct cause of disease.

"Bisphenol A is one of the world's most widely produced and used chemicals, and one of the problems until now is we don't know what has been happening in the general population," said Tamara Galloway, a University of Exeter researcher who worked on the study.

Canada's government in April decided BPA was harmful to infants and toddlers and announced plans to ban some products.

The European Union's top food safety body said in July the amount of BPA found in baby bottles cannot harm human health.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Food inspection agency recalls cheese recall

Food inspection agency recalls cheese recall

Wrong batch identified as being contaminated

Last Updated: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:00 PM Et

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a mea culpa after an inspector discovered a mix-up in which the wrong batch of Ivanhoe cheese was recalled because of listeria contamination.
The Canadian food watchdog issued a consumer advisory on Sept. 10 that a batch of Ontario-based Ivanhoe cheese bearing the code 3070 was contaminated with listeria.

However, upon reviewing documents two days later, an inspector found the wrong batch had been identified. In fact, the contaminated batch was 1089.

"The error was a computer/human error in terms of documentation. It was a simple typo that nobody picked up," said Garfield Balsom, a food safety and recall specialist with the CFIA.

The CFIA said it did not know how much, if any, cheese was thrown out by consumers as a result of the incorrect recall. None was thrown out at Ivanhoe as that batch had been sold.

The mix-up means there was a two-day delay in issuing the correct recall; however, Balsom said no illnesses have been linked to any of the Ivanhoe cheese recalls so far.

Such mistakes are fairly uncommon at the CFIA, said Balsom. It's the first time in his eight years there that he's seen an error of that type.

"We've got a pretty good track record," he said.

The CFIA will review the issue to see how such a mistake can be avoided in the future.

Health Information Advisory on Infant Formula

Health Information Advisory on Infant Formula

In response to reports of contaminated milk-based infant formula manufactured in China, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Health Information Advisory on September 12, 2008.

This is to assure the American public that there is no known threat of contamination in infant formula manufactured by companies that have met the requirements to sell infant formula in the United States.

Manufactured in ChinaIt has been reported that a number of infants in China who have consumed Chinese manufactured infant formula are suffering from kidney stones, a condition which is rare in infants.

The Chinese manufactured infant formula may be contaminated with melamine. Melamine artificially increases the protein profile of milk and can causes kidney diseases, such as those seen in these Chinese infants.

Although no Chinese manufacturers of infant formula have fulfilled the requirements to sell infant formula in the United States, FDA officials are investigating whether or not infant formula manufactured in China is being sold in specialty markets which serve the Asian community.
FDA is asking state officials to work with the agency to remove Chinese infant formula found on store shelves, and to warn members of the Asian community to avoid using Chinese manufactured infant formula.

Advice to CaregiversDon't feed infant formula manufactured in China to infants. Use an appropriate infant formula manufactured in the United States as mentioned below. Contact your health care professional if you have questions regarding the infant’s health or if you note changes in the infant’s health status. Manufacturers That Meet FDA RequirementsFDA began investigating the reports of contamination immediately and received information from the companies who manufacture infant formula for the American market that they are not importing infant formula or source materials from China.

The following manufacturers have met the necessary FDA requirements for marketing milk-based infant formulas in the United States:

Abbott Nutritionals Mead Johnson Nutritionals Nestle USA, PBM Nutritionals Solus Products LLC. Also, one manufacturer, SHS/Nutricia, Liverpool, England, markets an amino acid based exempt infant formula that does not contain any milk-derived ingredients.

FDA requires that all infant formula manufacturers register with the agency and adhere to specific labeling and nutritional requirements. All properly registered manufacturers marketing infant formula in the United States undergo an annual inspection of their production facilities.

This article appears on FDA's Consumer Health Information Web page (www.fda.gov/consumer), which features the latest updates on FDA-regulated products.

For More InformationFDA Press Releasehttp://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01883.html

FDA 101: Infant Formulahttp://www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/infantformula080607.html

Health Canada Reminds Canadians of the Dangers of Small Magnets

Health Canada Reminds Canadians of the Dangers of Small Magnets

Advisory2008-156

OTTAWA - Health Canada is again advising the public of the danger posed by small powerful magnets to children who can swallow them.

If a child swallows more than one magnet over a short period of time, the magnets can attract one another while travelling through the intestines. When this happens, the magnets can slowly tear through the intestinal walls, and block or twist the intestines, and result in serious, possibly fatal, injuries.

Small, powerful magnets are used more frequently today in toys, novelty jewellery items, and other household items and are particularly dangerous. During 2006-2007, several high-profile, wide-scale toy recalls were conducted by toy manufacturers because of this type of magnet separating from toys, resulting in incidents involving children in the United States. Recently, a five-year-old child in British Columbia required emergency surgery to remove two magnetic toy parts that she had swallowed.

Additionally, in the United States, as of April 2007, 33 cases of emergency surgery due to swallowed magnets had been reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The incidents demonstrate the serious nature of the hazard as well as the fact that older children are also putting the magnets or magnetic toy pieces in their mouths. If powerful magnets are swallowed, there is risk of serious injury, regardless of the age of the child.

The Canadian Paediatric Society (PDF Version - 63 K) recommends that magnetic toys be kept out of environments where children under six years of age are playing, and Health Canada continues to enhance toy safety, to provide greater protection to children from the ingestion and inhalation hazards associated with small powerful magnets.

Health Canada urges parents and caregivers to take appropriate steps to avoid incidents with such products:

Teach children of all ages that small magnets or small items that contain magnets should never be placed in their mouth. Carefully supervise children around products containing magnets.

Keep products with small magnets out of the reach of children under six years of age, and older children who still put non-food items in their mouths. Seek immediate medical care for any child who has swallowed, or is suspected of having swallowed, one or more magnets. Check products often to make sure they are in good condition. Look for magnets that may have detached from toys or other products and immediately remove the magnets from the reach of children under six years of age, and older children who still put non-food items in their mouths. Follow the safety warnings and manufacturer's age recommendations on children's toys. Keep toys intended for older children out of the reach of younger children.

Take appropriate action for any recalled toys you have in your home. For more information on the danger of swallowing magnets, please see the Health Canada Facts for Hazards of Ingesting Small Magnets.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Fraud database leads to vodka raid- U.K.

Fraud database leads to vodka raid

Intelligence gathered through the Food Standards Agency's national food fraud database has led police, customs and trading standards and environmental health officers to raid four premises in the London Borough of Haringey and seize hundreds of bottles of potentially dangerous counterfeit vodka.

The intelligence was received by the Agency after it published an alert to local authorities across the UK about counterfeit SPAR Imperial Vodka which contains potentially harmful levels of methanol. The levels recorded could have serious health effects, including blindness, if consumed in large quantities.

The Agency’s national food fraud database was set up to help local authorities investigate and prevent food fraud. Intelligence received by the Agency identified a warehouse in Haringey as a possible source of supply of the counterfeit 'Imperial Vodka'. Documents seized at the premises led officers to three further locations where more counterfeit vodka was seized.

Sarah Appleby, Head of Enforcement at the Food Standards Agency, said: 'The Agency plays an important role in gathering intelligence on food fraud from across the country and sharing it with local authorities to allow them to carry out their vital enforcement role effectively. Haringey Council's investigation is still on-going and we are continuing to warn the public and other local authorities to be on the look out for this potentially dangerous counterfeit vodka.'

FDA Issues Health Information Advisory on Infant Formula

FDA Issues Health Information Advisory on Infant Formula

In response to reports of contaminated milk-based infant formula manufactured in China, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today is issuing a Health Information Advisory. This is to assure the American public that there is no known threat of contamination in infant formula manufactured by companies that have met the requirements to sell infant formula in the United States. Although no Chinese manufacturers of infant formula have fulfilled the requirements to sell infant formula in the United States, FDA officials are investigating whether or not infant formula manufactured in China is being sold in specialty markets which serve the Asian community.

The FDA is advising caregivers not to feed infant formula manufactured in China to infants. This should be replaced with an appropriate infant formula manufactured in the United States as mentioned below. Individuals should contact their health care professional if they have questions regarding their infant’s health or if they note changes in their infant’s health status.

The FDA began investigating the reports of contamination immediately and received information from the companies who manufacture infant formula for the American market that they are not importing infant formula or source materials from China. The following manufacturers have met the necessary FDA requirements for marketing milk-based infant formulas in the United States: Abbott Nutritionals, Mead Johnson Nutritionals, Nestle USA, PBM Nutritionals, and Solus Products LLC. Also, one manufacturer, SHS/Nutricia, Liverpool, England, markets an amino acid based exempt infant formula that does not contain any milk-derived ingredients.

We are asking state officials to work with the Agency to assist with the removal of any Chinese infant formula found on store shelves, and to warn members of the Asian community to avoid using Chinese manufactured infant formula.

It has been reported that a number of infants in China who have consumed Chinese manufactured infant formula are suffering from kidney stones, a condition which is rare in infants. The Chinese manufactured infant formula may be contaminated with melamine.

Melamine artificially increases the protein profile of milk and can causes kidney diseases such as those seen in these Chinese infants.

FDA requires that all infant formula manufacturers register with the Agency and adhere to specific labeling and nutritional requirements. All properly registered infant formula manufacturers marketing infant formula in the United States undergo an annual inspection of
their production facilities.

FSIS to Host Public Meeting to Discuss the Application of Low Dose Irradiation as a Processing Aid

FSIS to Host Public Meeting to Discuss the Application of Low Dose Irradiation as a Processing Aid

Congressional and Public Affairs(202) 720-9113Amanda Eamich

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today announced a public meeting to discuss a petition requesting recognition for the use of low penetration and low dose irradiation on the surface of chilled beef carcasses as a processing aid.

The public meeting will be held on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. The meeting will feature a review of the information presented in the industry petition submitted to FSIS, and receive public comments on what action it should take with respect to the petition.

Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to radiant energy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved irradiation of meat and poultry and allows its use for a variety of other foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, and spices, and determined that the process is safe and effective in decreasing or eliminating harmful bacteria. FSIS then approved the suitability of food irradiation for use in treating refrigerated or frozen, uncooked meat and poultry products to reduce levels of foodborne pathogens and to extend shelf-life.

Currently, FSIS requires that meat or poultry treated with the traditional use of sources of ionizing radiation to bear the radura logo along with a statement such as "Treated with radiation" or "Treated by irradiation." Food irradiation is often used commercially to reduce numbers of pathogenic organisms, eliminate insect pests or extend shelf-life internationally, including in the United States.

Processing aids are defined by FDA regulations as substances that are added to a food for their technical effect during processing, but are not present in the finished product at significant levels and do not have any technical or functional effect in the food. Additionally, FDA regulations provide that processing aids are not required to be included on product labels. The use of low penetration and low dose irradiation on the surface of chilled beef carcasses is a unique application of the technology compared to the traditional application. Only the surface tissues of the beef carcass are affected, not the entire carcass. FSIS believes that this unique application fits with the description of a processing aid, thereby not requiring special labeling.

Individuals are encouraged to pre-register to attend, and should visit www.fsis.usda.gov or contact Robert Tynan at (202) 720-3884 or by e-mail at Robert.Tynan@fsis.usda.gov. The agenda and other related information will be available prior to the meeting on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Meetings_&_Events/index.asp.

For further information, contact Patrick Burke at (202) 720-7974 or by e-mail at Patrick.Burke@fsis.usda.gov. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should notify Mr. Tynan as soon as possible.

Written comments on this issue must be received on or before Oct. 18, 2008. Comments can be sent to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 2534 South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20250, or submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the "Search for Open Regulations" box, select "Food Safety and Inspection Service" and "Proposed Rules" from the agency drop-down menu and then click on "Submit." In the Docket ID column, select the FDMS Docket Number to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the "Advanced Search" function in Regulations.gov. All submissions received by mail or electronic mail must reference the Food Safety and Inspection Service and include the docket number FSIS-2008-0028.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

FDA: West Virginia Livestock Owner Sentenced in Criminal and Civil Contempt Case

FDA: West Virginia Livestock Owner Sentenced in Criminal and Civil Contempt Case

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that a West Virginia cattle dealer has been sentenced to six months probation for refusing to obey court orders in 2006 and 2008 that prohibited her from introducing animals into the food supply until the FDA had approved her record-keeping system. The FDA initiated the case after illegal levels of drug residue were found repeatedly in calves that Shirley A. Rhodes of Sandyville sold for use as human food.

On July 30, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph R. Goodwin sentenced Rhodes, finding her guilty of criminal and civil contempt for introducing adulterated food into the marketplace and for failing to maintain proper medication records for calves as part of her business, Rhodes Livestock. The violations occurred over a number of years, as recently as 2008, and involved 23 positive tests for drugs such as neomycin, penicillin, gentamicin and other antibiotics. No repercussions to human health were reported.

Under terms of her probation, Rhodes is barred for six months from purchasing, selling, obtaining, or transferring any animals that may be used as human food. After that date, she is prohibited from these activities until the FDA approves her written record-keeping system.

There are numerous drugs approved for use in animals ultimately intended for food. The FDA establishes drug tolerance levels to assure that there will be no harmful effects to consumers eating these food products. The U.S Department of Agriculture routinely tests tissue samples from animals intended for food in order to monitor drug tolerance levels. USDA fully supports actions taken against repeat offenders to further protect the food supply from potentially unsafe
products.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

CPSC Focuses On Safety in the Nursery and Around the House for Baby Safety Month

CPSC Focuses On Safety in the Nursery and Around the House for Baby Safety Month

Pillows Pose One of the Greatest Dangers Where Babies Sleep

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As parents prepare for a new baby with love and care, CPSC urges keeping safety in the mix. One area of great concern for the CPSC is pillow use in cribs. The CPSC is urging all parents to forego putting any kind of pillows in the crib due to the high risk of suffocation and entrapment. The CPSC is aware of at least 47 infant deaths between January 2006 and May 2008 associated with pillow use in the sleeping environment. In the 16 years between January 1992 and May 2008, pillows and cushions have been associated with 531 infant deaths.

“Parents should be especially vigilant when preparing for a new baby,” said Acting Chairman Nancy Nord. “Babies represent our most precious and vulnerable population.”
Nursery Safety

To reduce the risk of SIDS and suffocation, place baby to sleep on his or her back in a crib that meets current safety standards.

To prevent suffocation never use a pillow as a mattress for baby to sleep on or to prop baby’s head or neck.

Infants can strangle to death if their bodies pass through gaps between loose components, broken slats and other parts of the crib and their head and neck become entrapped in the space.

Do not use old, broken or modified cribs.
Regularly tighten hardware to keep sides firm.

Infants can suffocate in spaces between the sides of the crib and an ill fitting mattress; never allow a gap larger than two finger widths at any point between the sides of the crib and the mattress.

Never place a crib near a window with blind or curtain cords; infants can strangle on the cords.

Safety Around the House
Properly set up play yards according to manufacturers’ directions. Only use the mattress provided with the play yard. Do not add extra mattresses, pillows or cushions to the play yard, which can cause a suffocation hazard for infants.

Look for a toy chest that has a support that will hold the hinged lid open in any position in which it is placed or buy one with a detached lid or doors.

Small Parts – For children younger than age three, avoid toys with small parts, which can cause choking.

Magnets – For children younger than age eight, avoid building sets with small magnets. If magnets or pieces with magnets are swallowed, serious injuries and/or death can occur.

Select toys to suit the age, abilities, skills and interest level of the intended child. Look for sturdy construction, such as tightly-secured eyes, noses and other potential small parts.

For all children younger than age eight, avoid toys that have sharp edges and points.

Verify that furniture is stable on its own. For added security, anchor to the floor or attach to a wall.

Use outlet covers and outlet plates to help prevent electrocution.

CPSC encourages parents to routinely check toys and nursery products against CPSC recall lists and remove recalled products from your home. Sign-up for automatic e-mail recall notifications at www.cpsc.gov

SALMONELLOSIS, TOURISTS - UNITED KINGDOM ex TURKEY: ALERT

SALMONELLOSIS, TOURISTS - UNITED KINGDOM ex TURKEY: ALERT

It emerged yesterday [8 Sep 2008], hundreds of British holidaymakers may have been struck down with salmonellosis. Some have already been diagnosed with the potential serious infection after returning from a hotel complex in Turkey. These numbers are expected to rise. The tourists affected were staying at the Holiday Village Turkey in the resort of Sarigerme. They suffered sickness and diarrhea and some were so ill they had to be taken to hospital for treatment.

It has been stated that, "From all reports coming out of the resort, we expect the number of cases to rise significantly over the next few days. Estimates put the figure of those affected at well over 1000. Anyone returning to the UK from Sarigerme who has been ill should see their doctor immediately."

Last night [8 Sep 2008], a spokeswoman for travel agency involved said "a very small proportion" of guests at the resort reported being ill and were being treated for an "airborne virus." She added, "We are taking every precaution possible to safeguard the health and well being of our guests."

U.S. EPA fines Sierra Chemical Co. for pesticide violations Company pays more than $29,000 in penalties

U.S. EPA fines Sierra Chemical Co. for pesticide violations Company pays more than $29,000 in penalties

Contact Information: Mary Simms, 415-947-4270, simms.mary@epa.gov

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined the Sparks, Nev.-based company Sierra Chemical Co. $29,100 for the alleged misuse of a pesticide and for distributing a pesticide with two different EPA registration numbers – violations of federal pesticide law.

The Sierra Pure Chlor label states ‘mix only with water according to label directions.’ During a delivery of the product to a community swimming pool in Reno, a Sierra Chemical Co. employee allegedly misused Sierra Pure Chlor by mixing it with muriatic acid. The improper mixture created a strong chlorine gas that caused the evacuation and transportation of swimmers to local hospitals.

“Companies that service swimming pools must ensure that label directions are followed and precautions taken to ensure harm does not occur,” said Katherine Taylor, associate director of the Communities and Ecosystems Division in EPA’s Pacific Southwest region. “In this case, failure to follow label directions resulted in a hazardous situation.”

In addition, Sierra Pure Chlor was distributed on five occasions to various pool supply stores and municipalities with two different registration numbers on the bottles, one which correctly identified the product and one which incorrectly identified the product.

The Nevada Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation identified the violations during multiple inspections.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act regulates the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides within the United States. Before selling or distributing any pesticide in the United States, companies must register the pesticide with the EPA. Each producer, seller, and distributor is required pursuant to federal law to ensure that the registered pesticide is labeled in accordance with agency requirements.

For more information on pesticide regulation and enforcement, please visit: www.epa.gov/pesticides/

EPA fines Syngenta Seeds, Inc. for pesticides violations in Hawaii Hawaii violations part of larger action with total of over $284,000 in penalties

EPA fines Syngenta Seeds, Inc. for pesticides violations in Hawaii Hawaii violations part of larger action with total of over $284,000 in penalties

Contact Information: Dean Higuchi, 808-541-2711, higuchi.dean@epa.gov

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced a settlement with Syngenta Seeds, Inc., for $17,550 in fines for alleged violations of federal pesticide regulations.

The settlement is part of three separate administrative complaints totaling $284,050 in civil penalties with Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., for violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. EPA Region 4 in Atlanta consolidated the violations throughout the United States to emphasize the need for quality control in all aspects of pesticide production and distribution.

The EPA found alleged pesticide worker protection violations by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., in Kekaha, Kauai. These violations include failing to store all personal protective equipment separately from clothing and apart from pesticide-contaminated areas, and failing to post the spraying of the pesticide Liberty at its Central Notification Site.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. also settled alleged violations including use of a pesticide contrary to a provision of an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) issued by EPA. EPA alleged that the company had not obtained a State permit or license from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico prior to the shipment and/or use of a corn that was the subject of the EUP.

The other settlements include:
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. agreed to pay a penalty of $196,300 for alleged violations involving two products. The settlement agreement resolved alleged violation of distributing Mesotrione Wet Paste with ingredients that differed in composition from the formula submitted to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mesotrione Wet Paste is produced in Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc’s Bucks, AL facility. The settlement agreement also resolved alleged advertising violations of the pesticide Lumax Selective Herbicide because television commercials aired in the Midwest did not include the classification that it was a restricted-use pesticide.

- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. self-disclosed additional violations under EPA’s Audit Policy regarding written advertisements for restricted use pesticides and paid a penalty of $70,200.
FIFRA regulates the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides within the United States. Importers, distributors, and retailers, are required by federal law to ensure that any pesticides they distribute have been registered with EPA and comply with FIFRA.

For more information on pesticide regulation and enforcement, please visit: http://epa.gov/compliance/civil/fifra.

Authorities play down Italian cheese scandal fears

Authorities play down Italian cheese scandal fears

As another scandal involving Italian cheese production hit the headlines this week, authorities in the country claim there is no danger to the public from their products and consumer protection has not been compromised.

Reports have emerged over the last seven days alleging that a number of arrests have been made in the country related to the production and sale of cheeses that had been mixed with out of date or even rotten products.

However, both the country’s authorities and the European Commission are confident that consumers across the bloc are not at risk from eating Italian cheeses.

The case is the latest setback for the Italian cheese industry, which in March of this year faced a potential ban in Europe for some of its mozzarella products due to fears over carcinogenic dioxin contamination in milk used for their formulation.

Italian confirmation
While Francesca Martini, under secretary of state in the country, confirmed that the spoiled cheese manufacture had taken place, she played down any health risks to consumers from the case.

Martini said in a statement that she had already taken action over the rotten cheese products on 4 July this year in accordance with both national and EC guidelines.

She claimed that in order to ensure consumer health was not at risk by the cheese, an immediate request was made in July for information to be referred to the food safety and nutrition authorities to withdraw any potentially harmful products from circulation as soon as possible.

While the information was still unavailable a month later, had Italian authorities been concerned for consumer safety, they could have still have removed the products from sale under the Rapid
Alert System linked to EU Regulation 178/2001, Martini said.

Future vigilance
While the authorities claim to be confident that consumers remain protected under the laws, Martini stressed the importance of preventing further scandals in Italian cheese production.

"It is clear that, even if these fraudulent practices did not jeopardise public health, they do give rise to alarm and mistrust among consumers,” she stated. “They harm market operators who abide by the law and they undermine our country's good name in matters of food quality and safety."

Commission view
Despite these concerns, the EC said that it remained confident that cheese production within the country did not pose a risk to consumers.

Back in July, when the case first emerged, the Commission said that it had been notified by Italian authorities that a manufacturer had collected and re-processed milk products to be sent on to a related company.

The manufacturer’s factory was closed as a result back in June 2007, the commission stated.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Recall of Questionable Foods Goes Unheeded

Recall of Questionable Foods Goes Unheeded

A rat's head in a shrimp snack and a razor blade in a tuna can raised public concern over food safety here in March, but it is little known that such foods were not recalled properly due to loose rules and management's failure to act.

According to the Korea Food and Drug Administration's report to Rep. Jeong Ha-gyun of the Pro-Park Alliance, only 7.2 percent of Saewukkang (fried shrimp snack) and 36.4 percent of canned tuna were returned to the makers.

The government asked the food manufacturers to collect all products from the same batch on the market, but since it was not an obligation, the companies largely ignored the request.

Nongshim, the maker of Saewukkang, set out to collect 3,906 kilograms of the snack, a mere 5 percent of the government's required 61,276 kilograms. Once the maker collected 4,434 kilograms, it promoted it as if it had achieved its goals, Jeong said. The same thing happened with Dongwon's canned tuna.

The largest problem occurs when food makers try to cover up the fact that they were required to collect a complete batch of troubled brand foods on the market. From 2005 to June 2008, the food administration has posted 355 recall orders and requested companies to announce the results, but only 16 were undertaken.

We need to change the rules to oblige responsible firms to announce the results of recalls to let the public know about the trouble so they can avoid it. Also opening the recall rate to the public
is essential, Jeong said.