The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

Blogging Boomer Carnival celebrates its fifth anniversary with travel tips, financial discussions, food and health issues, and pet love

By Rita R. Robison

Blog carnivals collect links pointing to blog articles on a particular topic. A blog carnival is like a special interest magazine. It has a title, a topic that flows through its postings, editors, contributors, and a focused audience. Editions of the carnival come out on a regular basis, often weekly.

A couple of weeks ago, I joined the Blogging Boomer Carnival. This week, the carnival is marking its fifth anniversary with a roundup by Laura Carter, blogging at The Midlife Crisis Queen.

Laura reports on using trout in salad, sightseeing in Dubai, helping adult children financially, hearing problems boomers face, challenging investment decisions, loving pets, and looming food shortages. See "Blogging Boomers Blog Carnival #260" for details.

Baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are America’s largest age group so far, and a fascinating group they are.

Boomers are leading corporations, serving as governmental officials, heading up non-profits, worrying about retirement, and experiencing layoffs at a higher rate than younger workers. They’re also reinventing themselves in trying economic times, with some looking for their dream jobs to keep them happy in retirement.

At each stage in their lives, boomers have changed things. They’re continuing to make America different as they begin entering into their retirement years.

In addition to The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide, members of the Blogging Boomer Carnival are: The Accidental Locavore, The Midlife Crisis Queen, Sightings at 60, Arabian Tales and Other Amazing Adventures, So Baby Boomer, Vaboomer, Empty House Full Mind, and Witty Woman Writing.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Consumer group says U.S. needs better system to track animals to prevent ‘mad cow disease’

By Rita R. Robison

Two consumers that I know don’t eat meat or poultry anymore due to outbreaks of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or “mad cow disease” in the 1990s.

With a case reported last week in a California dairy cow, I wondered if their plan of action is something I need to consider.

The cow was never presented for slaughter for human consumption and at no time presented a risk to the food supply or human health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a statement. In addition, the agency said milk doesn’t transmit BSE.

"The United States has had longstanding interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal health against BSE,” USDA Chief Veterinary Officer John Clifford said.

These include the USDA ban on specified risk materials, or SRMs, from the food supply. SRMs are parts of the animal that are most likely to contain the BSE agent if it’s present in an animal. The USDA also bans all nonambulatory or "downer" cattle from entering the human food chain.

For animal health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ban on ruminant material in cattle feed prevents the spread of the disease in cattle herds.

"Evidence shows that our systems and safeguards to prevent BSE are working, as are similar actions taken by countries around the world,” Clifford said. “In 2011, there were only 29 worldwide cases of BSE, a dramatic decline and 99 percent reduction since the peak in 1992 of 37,311 cases.”

USDA remains confident in the health of the national herd and the safety of beef and dairy products, he added.

However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn’t agree.

The U. S. has first-world resources and technology but a third-world animal identification system, Sarah Klein, food safety attorney for the center, said in a statement.

“In fact, some third-world countries do a better job of tracking livestock than America does,” Klein said. “Botswana, for one, uses RFID microchips to track its animals up and down the supply chain.”

She said if American cattlemen suffer economic losses at the news of discovery of BSE in the California dairy cow because some consumers reduce their meat consumption, they should blame only themselves and other opponents of a mandatory animal identification system.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Consumer groups urge Obama administration to support country-of-origin labeling for meat and produce

Consumer groups are asking the Obama administration to appeal a November 2011 ruling by a World Trade Organization panel against the United State’s country-of-origin labels on meat and fresh produce. The ruling followed a case brought by Canada and Mexico in December 2008 against the consumer labeling law, which is also opposed by agribusiness corporations in the U.S.

“Poll after poll show that American consumers want to know where their food comes from,” Jean Halloran, director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, said in a statement. “The WTO should not stand in the way.”

The meat-labeling law was a result of a decades-long struggle to assure consumers are provided with basic information about the origin of meat products, fish, seafood, certain nuts, and fresh fruits and vegetables.

“Consumers have been pushing for country-of-origin labeling for decades only to have the new law challenged at the WTO,” said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at Consumer Federation of America. “If upheld on appeal, the WTO ruling will undermine consumers’ faith in the fairness of these international institutions.”

Many countries have country-of-origin labeling, including Argentina, Australia, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.

"Consumers worldwide have successfully advocated for country-of-origin labeling requirements – most more transparent and informative than the U.S. labels," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Neither the president nor the Congress should bow to the will of international trade bureaucrats that want to take commonsense country-of-origin labels away from the American people."

While the WTO panel affirmed the right of the U.S. to require country-of-origin labeling for meat products, the panelists concluded that requiring companies to comply with the law was too costly for imported livestock, but that the flexibilities in the law violated other WTO rules.

The consumer groups point out that this conflicted ruling demonstrates the danger of emphasizing trade over consumer regulation.

The U.S. has until mid-March to appeal the ruling. If it is not appealed or is upheld on appeal, the U.S. may be asked to weaken or eliminate the country of origin labeling law.

“An appeal will buy the U.S. time and may help weaken or overturn the damaging lower panel ruling,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “But consumers are calling on Congress to challenge the legitimacy of any WTO ruling against popular consumer policies.”

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Consumer group blasts expansion of poultry inspection program

Last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service announced that the agency will be expanding a controversial inspection program that will allow all poultry slaughter plants to participate on a voluntary basis.

The Consumer Federation of America, a consumer advocacy group, has concerns about expanding the HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project.

There has been no thorough independent review of the project since 2001 when the Government Accounting Office reviewed it and raised serious concerns about the data presented by the service to justify the program, the federation said in a statement.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) recently asked the GAO to conduct a review of the program so that the public could be provided with an evaluation of it before expansion was considered. The service’s announcement pre-empts any independent review, the federation said. 

The service’s testing data on Salmonella in the plants taking part in the pilot project show that while some plants exceed the standard, others don’t.

Even more troubling is service’s recent admission that plants may temporarily change their food safety processes during the service’s verification sampling, the federation said. In a notice to inspectors, the service said that plants may be increasing chlorine levels in poultry chillers to levels not supported under the plant’s inspection plan prior to or during service’s sampling for Salmonella and then returning to normal chlorine levels after service’s sampling is completed.

Such adjustments could lead to different levels of contamination and different sampling results than those in the plant’s day-to-day operation, according to the federation.

The service has no data on plant performance in reducing Campylobacter because the agency has never tested for Campylobacter, the federation said. Last year, the agency proposed new standards for Salmonella and Campylobacter and testing under the new standards has just begun.

Consumers have no assurance that plants using the program’s model can meet the new standards, the federation said. It’s also unclear whether plants that can’t meet the new standards will be allowed to continue operating under program.

Program participation gives plants advantages such as increased line speeds, the federation said. Plants that can’t meet the new standards for reducing pathogens shouldn’t be permitted to continue those advantages, according to the federation.

Copyright 2012, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Study finds vast majority of crops subsidized by federal government ends up in junk food

By Rita R. Robison

Federal subsidies for commodity crops are also subsidizing junk food additives such as high fructose corn syrup, enough to pay for 19 Twinkies per taxpayer every year, according to Apples to Twinkies, a new report by U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy organization.

However, limited subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables would buy less than a quarter of an apple per taxpayer.

“At a time when childhood obesity rates are skyrocketing, it’s absurd that we’re spending billions of taxpayer dollars to make the problem worse,” U.S. PIRG Policy Analyst Mike Russo said in a statement. “It’s absurd that junk food is subsidized by taxpayers, while fresh fruits and vegetables barely get a bite at the apple.”

Between 1995 and 2010, American taxpayers spent more than $260 billion in agricultural subsidies. Most subsidies went to the country’s largest farming operations, mainly to grow a few commodity crops, including corn and soybeans. Among other uses, food manufacturers process these crops into additives such as high fructose corn syrup and vegetable oils that provide a cheap dose of sweetness and fat to a wide variety of junk food products.

“Shoveling cash at commodity crops also means we’re subsidizing these unhealthy additives, too,” said Russo. “At a time when government spending is coming under increasing scrutiny, it’s time for Congress to get its priorities straight.”

Among the report’s key findings: 

• Between 1995 and 2010, $16.9 billion in tax dollars subsidized four common food additives – corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils, better known as hydrogenated vegetable oils. At $7.36 per taxpayer per year, that would buy each taxpayer 19 Twinkies. 

• Outside of commodity crops, other agricultural products receive very little in federal subsidies. Since 1995, taxpayers spent only $262 million subsidizing apples, which is the only significant federal subsidy of fresh fruits or vegetables. Coming to 11 cents per taxpayer per year that would buy less than a quarter of a Red Delicious apple. 

Childhood obesity rates have tripled over the last three decades, with one in five kids aged 6 to 11 now obese. Research shows that increased snacking is responsible for a significant portion of this increase.

The report is available on the U.S. PIRG website.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Animal rights group, egg producers agree to work for better conditions for caged laying hens

By Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

The Humane Society of the United States and the United Egg Producers have agreed to work together for a series of reforms that will improve the lives of laying hens.

The UEP, a trade association for the egg industry, and the society have been battling for years over the confinement practices in the industry – specifically, keeping laying hens in barren battery cages. These cages are so small hens don’t have room to spread their wings, perch, nest, or take a dust bath.

More than 260 million hens are kept in extreme confinement systems.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the society, called the action a historic agreement on his blog.

"There’s currently no federal protection for chickens used for food at all, and no protection for any farm animals during production (there’s a federal humane slaughter law only, and even it applies only to mammals and not to birds)," Pacelle said. "With this agreement, I have great hope that may soon change."

The legislation that the society and UEP will work to enact would:

• Require a moratorium at the end of 2011 on new construction of unenrichable battery cages and the nationwide elimination of barren battery cages through a phase-out period.
• Require phased-in construction of new hen housing systems that provide each hen nearly double the amount of space they’re currently provided.
• Require environmental enrichments so birds can engage in important natural behaviors currently denied to them in barren cages, such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas.
• Mandate labeling on all egg cartons nationwide to inform consumers of the method used to produce the eggs, such as "eggs from caged hens" or "eggs from cage-free hens."
• Prohibit forced molting through starvation – an inhumane practice that is inflicted on tens of millions of hens each year and which involves withholding all food from birds for up to two weeks in order to manipulate the laying cycle.
• Prohibit excessive ammonia levels in henhouses – a common problem in the industry that is harmful to both hens and egg industry workers.
• Prohibit the sale of all eggs and egg products nationwide that don’t meet these requirements.

Some of the provisions will be carried out soon after enactment, such as those relating to molting, ammonia, and euthanasia, and others after a few years, including labeling and the requirement that all birds will have to have at least 67 square inches of space each rather than 48, he said.

In exchange, the society will put on hold its efforts to pass ballot measures in Washington and Oregon to halt the use of battery cage confinement in egg production.

Copyright 2011, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Nation needs stronger food safety laws now

A conservative commentator criticized the U.S. Senate saying it didn’t get the message voters gave in the midterm elections when it decided that the first bill it was going to vote on after the election was on food safety.

I don’t agree. I applaud the Senate for taking up this important matter now.

Every year, 76 millions of cases of food-related illnesses are reported, with more than 300,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, according the New York Times editorial “The 76 Million Food Victims.”

Imagine how horrible it would be if your child or grandchild died from eating a contaminated hamburger or your spouse died from eating tainted spinach.

Consumer groups, health organizations, and federal agencies support the bill. It has bi-partisan support, with some Republican senators in favor

Among its provisions, as reported by The Times, are:

• Setting up pilot programs to improve the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to track toxins quickly to any source.

• Providing new powers for the FDA, which has been understaffed and given too little authority to prevent food-borne illnesses.

• Giving the FDA the power to order a mandatory recall of a food product if there was a reasonable probability of causing “serious adverse health consequences or death.”

• Requiring all food processors regulated by the FDA to develop risk-based preventive plans that would identify possible contamination points in each facility.

• Requiring the FDA to inspect food facilities more frequently. Inspections currently occur only once every 10 years.

The differences between the House and Senate bills are being debated.

One amendment seeks to exempt some small farmers and producers from the provisions of the bill due to concerns about their costs. Another amendment to place federal limits on the use of BPA in food and beverage containers failed.  

A vote on the bill could come by the end of the week.

Copyright 2010, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Olympia Food Co-op Harvest Dinner a fall delight

Yesterday, the Olympia Food Coop celebrated the fall harvest with its Sixth Annual Harvest Dinner.

It was great fun. The co-op provided main dishes and halibut burgers. Co-op members brought salads and vegetable dishes. The nice thing was there were few desserts.

Another great thing; There were no paper plates or plastic silverware. Co-op staff washed dishes throughout, real dishes and silverware.

Kids bobbed for apples and played other games. A band played. And the best thing, the sun came out after I’d been there about an hour.

I hope you enjoy my photos.

Copyright 2010, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

FDA poised to approved genetically engineered salmon

It’s a food that you hear about over and over again as America tries to get back on track to eat healthier. Salmon. It’s high in omega 3 fatty acids, which aids cardiovascular health.

Now the food industry, supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, wants to alter this great food so it can make more money – and make it faster.

Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. has submitted an application to the FDA to request that it be allowed to sell an Atlantic salmon that has been given a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, which allows the salmon to grow twice as fast as a traditional Atlantic salmon. It also contains a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon. The fish is called AquAdvantage Salmon.

Unfortunately, it looks like the FDA is going to approve this travesty.

In its background paper, “An Overview of Atlantic Salmon, Its Natural History, Aquaculture, and Genetic Engineering,” the agency says aquaculture of fish is the only way to meet the needs of growing populations. Fish consumption is increasing throughout the world.

Farm-raised fish, which will be bigger fish when this proposal is approved, will lead to increased water pollution, increased illness among fish, and the decimation of wild salmon stocks as the genetically engineered salmon intermingle with wild salmon.

We’ve just had a major foodborne illness outbreak. A billion shell eggs were recalled. The massive recall brought attention to the deplorable conditions in which chickens are raised – pens in which they can’t perch or spread their wings.

Now the food industry wants to grow bigger fish in more pens. It’s a foodborne illness and environmental disaster waiting to happen.

I think genetically engineered foods are bad for the American public. Most of these foods are banned in Europe. And, unfortunately, in this country, genetically engineered foods aren’t required to be labeled. About 75 percent of the food that Americans eat is genetically engineered, and they don’t even know it.

The tone of the FDA’s background paper was very positive toward genetically engineered food. It looks like the Obama administration is going to cave in to the food industry once again.

Although President Obama was willing to take on the health care industry, to a degree, and financial institutions, also modestly, he hasn’t been willing to tackle the powerful food industry at all.

The administration made a big deal out of its proposals to curb obesity – all voluntary.

Next we’re likely to get "Enviropig," a hog genetically altered to produce environmentally friendly manure.

The FDA will present information that the agency has evaluated, with any confidential information redacted, to the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee at a public meeting to be held on Sept. 20. The material will be available two to 14 days before the meeting.

On labeling food from AquAdvantage Salmon, the agency is likely to say it doesn’t need special labeling. None of the genetically engineered crops sold in America are labeled. A hearing will be held Sept. 21, at which the public can express its views on labeling AquAdvantage Salmon. 

A coalition of 31 consumer, animal welfare, environmental and fisheries groups announced opposition to the approval last week, citing, in particular, concerns that the salmon could escape and possibly outcompete wild salmon for food or mates, The New York Times reports.

Among them are Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, SalmonAID Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Salmon Fishermen’s Association, Sierra Club, Say No to GMOS, Center for Environmental Health, PCC Natural Markets, Northern Atlantic Marine Alliance, and Organic Consumers Association.

Allowing such a healthy food as salmon to be genetically engineered is very discouraging. The only hopeful thought I have is that consumers can continue to buy and eat locally grown organic food and wild salmon.

We have a great Farmers’ Market here in Olympia, Wash., that sells wild salmon. I think I’ll go buy some tomorrow.

Copyright 2010, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Recall of the Week: Massive egg recall due to possible Salmonella contamination – Be sure to check your eggs

 

More than a half billion shell eggs have now been recalled, with a second Iowa firm announcing on Friday the recall of 170 million eggs after tests confirmed the presence of Salmonella.

Eggs affected by the Hillandale Farms recall were distributed to grocery stores and foodservice companies which service or are located in 14 states including Arkansas, California, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.

The eggs, in various-size cartons and cases, are distributed under the following brand names: Hillandale Farms, Sunny Farms, and Sunny Meadow.

The recall involves eggs with plant numbers P1860 or P1663 and Julian dates as follows:

P1860 – Julian dates ranging from 099 to 230

P1663 – Julian dates ranging from 137 to 230

On Aug 13, Wright County Egg, of Galt, Iowa, recalled 228 million eggs due to possible Salmonella contamination. On Aug. 19, the firm recalled an additional 152 million eggs.

The brands included in the first Wright County Egg recall are Albertsons, Farm Fresh, James Farms, Glenview, Mountain Dairy, Ralphs, Boomsma, Lund, Kemps, and Pacific Coast.

Involved in the second Wright Company Egg recall are the following brands: Lucerne, Albertson, Mountain Dairy, Ralph's, Boomsma's, Sunshine, Hillandale, Trafficanda, Farm Fresh, Shoreland, Lund, Dutch Farms, and Kemps.

The Egg Center, a trade group, offers this information on how to check your eggs:

Dates and codes can be found stamped on the end of the egg carton or printed on the case label. However, not all affected brands will be printed in the same order. Typically, the plant number begins with the letter P and then the number. In most cases, the Julian date follows the plant number, for example: P-1720 223.

If your carton has a combination of numbers that matches the affected plant number AND Julian date, your eggs are affected in the recall. Using the example above, P-1720 223 may appear on some cartons as 223 #1720, 1720 223, or other variations. It is important to note that both the plant number and Julian date must match.

Check the Egg Center’s website for a listing of the plant and Julian numbers in all the recent egg recalls.

Consumers who find that they've purchased recalled eggs should return to the store for a refund.

Since May 2010, a four-fold increase in the number of cases of Salmonella Enteritidis infections has occurred.

See the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s "Salmonella" and "Playing It Safe With Eggs: What Consumers Need to Know" for information on the symptoms of Salmonella infection and how to properly handle and store eggs.

Copyright 2010, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist