Fourth Energy Hearing on the FDA and Food Safety
Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak gives opening remarks:
| Subcommittee Chairman Stupak: "Our hearing today will focus on the treatment of packaging of meat and fish in carbon monoxide. This recent innovation, adopted by some members of the food processing industry, is highly deceptive. Carbon monoxide artificially preserves the color of meat making it appear fresh even after it has spoiled... I was astonished to learn that carbon monoxide treatment provides no consumer benefit at all... To put it bluntly, the sole purpose of carbon monoxide packaging is to fool consumers into believing the meat and fish they buy is fresh, no matter how old it is... Lastly, I would note, that soon after we opened this investigation we sent letters to a number of prominent food processors and retailers requesting information and records on blasting of meat and seafood with carbon monoxide. In response, Tyson's Food, Safeway, Giant Food, and Stop & Shop all agreed to stop selling carbon monoxide treated meat..." |
Nancy Donley, President of S.T.O.P. (Safe Tables Our Priority) gives testimony:
| Donley: "I personally became involved in food safety after the death of my six-year-old son Alex from E. Coli 015787 poisoning in 1983... the way that our regulatory agencies handled these GRAS petitions cause us deep concern. I am neither a scientist nor a statistician, but even I can tell after looking at the study submitted to FDA and USDA by the companies in support of their petitions that sound science was not used. The number of samples of ground beef used was extraordinarily small, they only used six in one study and fifteen in another, for instance. In each study all the samples were taken form one plant at a single point in time. The temperature abuse study was done at 50 degrees Fahrenheit which is far cooler than even room temperature. And lastly, the sample was done at the point of production rather than on retail product that had passed through the whole chain..." |
Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak questions Robert Post, Deputy Director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion at the USDA, as well as Lane Highbarger and Dr. John Engel of the USDA, and forces them to admit that the study on which the USDA and FDA based approval of carbon monoxide in meat packaging process was deeply and obviously flawed:
| Stupak: "OK, you're looking at the book there, do you agree with me that when the microbial counts should have gone up, they were decreasing and when odors should have gone up they decreased. That there are problems here, as pointed out in those email, do you agree that there's problems in these studies based on their own internal emails of Cargill and Hormel under Precepts Food? That we have some serious questions here now?" Highbarger, USDA: [reading email, silent] Stupak: "I take it that's a yes..." |
Extended transcript:
Subcommittee Chairman Stupak: "Let me go a little farther... because, Precept Foods, which is a joint venture between Cargill and Hormel, right? That's what Precept Foods is? Correct?"Post: "I'm not aware."
Stupak: "OK, go to the last 2 pages of exhibit 71-D. Because Precept also realized the data they submitted is opposite of what you concluded, still they submitted the data. Look at the last 2 pages there, last 3 pages, actually. Email, Monday May 10, 2004, to Anne Whalen (?) from, looks like, D. Ruzek. DRuzek at hormel.com -- 71-D, go to 71-D. OK, we're talking about this study now. You see this? It's the last 3 pages? It's an email?"
Post: "Ah, yes I found that."
Stupak: "OK. And this is May 10. Right after they submitted those documents to you: 'Anne obviously you have had other things on your mind recently but when you get a chance to review this report please let me know if you see any other funny data in it. I welcome any insights or questions you may have. Quite honestly, this test seems to raise more questions that it answers. Thanks Much.' Now that was at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. If you go there, Anne Whalen responds 3 hours later: 'I've read the report a couple of times' - this is her email response back to Mr. Ruzek - 'these data do bring some interesting thoughts. Why are the samples with the most off-odor have micro-counts that aren't different than the samples that have acceptable odor? The sample with the last state have more desirable odor than the samples without last state. Why are micro-counts decreasing as number of days increase?' That's the inverse that I talked about. 'Also micro-counts are decreasing but odor is increasing.' That's reverse; it should be just the opposite. 'When the environment has bugs, I think there would be an increase in CO2, but on the package tested, the CO2 has decreased. Just a thought, why put a claim statement in summary of these data don't show results that can be patentable? Why not let the patent lawyers determine?'"
Stupak: [To Post] "Would you agree with me that that questions the validity of the study they submitted, which you based your approval upon? Would you agree with me? Is that what that email says?"
Post: "Based on this information I think this leads to some questions, yes."
Stupak: "Based on this information, don't you think you should reconsider your approval and use of carbon monoxide until we get these questions answered?"
Post: "Well I suppose my best response is that based on the data that we received in May of 2004, no signs of spoilage were detected in any of the samples. The additional data were from studies that were conducted in February 2004."
Stupak: "By Precept Foods and that is the data submitted to you, in which you based your decision upon, correct?"
Post: "Exactly."
Stupak: "So the questions I raised, and the questions raised in this email, would you not want to reconsider it? The use of carbon monoxide in packaging?"
Engeljohn: "This is Engeljohn on behalf of the department, FSIS. I would say, as I said in my opening statement, that if in fact we receive new data or information for us to reassess the information that we were previously provided we certainly will do that. And we have, in fact..."
Stupak: "So you will now reassess, here based up on this email, the information that I pointed out?"
Engeljohn: "We clearly will look at the data and we have asked our research arm of the department to actually work with us on the design of the study, to actually, in fact, look at this particular issue as well as the broader issue."
Stupak: "Well can you assure the American people that, based upon this faulty study on which you made your approval, you will suspend the use of carbon monoxide in modified packaging until you get the answers resolved here? This raises some serious issues, does it not?"
Engeljohn: "We would still go back to the issue of, the data that we were looking at were specific to the issue of whether or not spoilage would be an indicator here. And rather we did not look at this from a safety perspective."
Stupak: "And you also look at deception? Whether or not his packaging is deceptive to the American people?"
Engeljohn: "Again from our perspective we did establish a 'use-by/freeze-by' date as the mode in which a consumer would in fact be able to tell if this product is spoiled."
Stupak: "Let me ask Dr. Highbarger, I had asked you earlier, you've seen these studies, you saw these studies right?"
Highbarger: "I saw them; I don't recall them at all. I mean I can't pull the numbers out of my head, that was 3 years ago."
Stupak: "OK, you're looking at the book there, do you agree with me that when the microbial counts should have gone up, they were decreasing and when odors should have gone up they decreased. That there are problems here, as pointed out in those email, do you agree that there's problems in these studies based on their own internal emails of Cargill and Hormel under Precepts Food? That we have some serious questions here now?"
Highbarger: [reading email, silent]
Stupak: "I take it that's a yes. Let me ask Dr. Engeljohn. Dr. Engeljohn, you mention the GRAS. Was there ever a GRAS study panel for this carbon monoxide use in the packaging? You usually get a panel together, don't you, to review it? On the GRAS?"
Engeljohn: "Not that I'm aware of, sir."
Stupak: "You usually do one, don't you? -- Dr. Post, you look like you want to answer. [To Dr. Post] You usually do a GRAS review panel? You have a panel to review it before you make a rec?"
Post: "I'll answer 'no' to that but I'll also defer to my FDA colleagues to answer to the GRAS process."
Stupak: "So there was no outside review? Just your internal review of these studies submitted by Precept Foods, correct?"
Post: "Yes."
UPDATE: Oversight once again yields results:
Hormel Foods, Cargill agree to label food if treated with carbon monoxide
Forbes - November 13, 2007
Hormel Foods and Cargill Inc. said today they can agree to put information on meat and fish labels that makes it clear to consumers when those products have been treated with carbon monoxide during the packaging process, even as US officials indicated they are open to testing this process to ensure it's safe for consumers.The use of carbon monoxide packaging was discussed at a hearing today before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, where Chairman Bart Stupak of Pennsylvania said this technique in food packaging is 'highly deceptive' because it keeps meat looking fresh even though it may have spoiled.
He also offered evidence from an internal company email from Hormel indicating that there is some evidence this technique may not be safe.