As a parent, one of my rules is “Safety First!” This is a simple precaution to take with my kids, and it makes them aware of their surroundings in any and all activities.

But in the food world it can mean the difference between life and death.

Many retailers are stringent when it comes to the safety of where their private label food. The vast majority require their own third-party, superior-rated audits. This is a multi-faceted step — initiated by the retailer — that can include a social responsibility component, technical product specifications to ensure quality consistency and a factory visit by their professional in-house quality assurance team.

So it shocks me that there continues to be certain well-known, national retailers who assume that their brand is protected by the manufacturers that produce for them. They wrongly assume that these manufacturers are taking on the “Safety First” responsibility of the business, so that no harm could possibly befall the retailer for which they produce a myriad of products.

That may be true. Quality and safety start with the manufacturer. But they must be reinforced by each retailer that buys their goods.

Why is it that durable goods manufacturers even have slogans touting quality claims (think Ford Motor Co’s “Quality is Job 1” slogan), yet when it comes to the food we eat this is not necessarily the case? I’ve been to hundreds, if not thousands, of food manufacturing plants around the world and it seems to me that the United States is one of the few countries that remain comparatively lax when it comes to food manufacturing.

Retailers and manufacturers need to work hand in hand to ensure that all items produced are given the safety seal of approval akin to Ford’s slogan. There are enough obstacles in this business and we don’t want the food we eat to become one more of them, especially when it is relatively easy to maintain quality and still protect our health through basic food safety measures.

Retailers, you know who you are, Please take the extra precautionary steps to ensure food safety by requiring annual third-party audits and technical product specs at the very least. Your health — and ours — depend on it.

Attempting to quantify the health-related costs associated with foodborne illness is, at best, an inexact science. There are so many variables to weigh. Some, like medical expenses and lost wages, are fairly obvious and easy to calculate. Research can reveal some pretty concrete numbers for those types of factors.

What about pain and suffering? Or the cost of financial burdens placed on a family whose primary wage-earner died as the result of a foodborne pathogen?

This “Big Picture” approach was taken with the new report: Health-Related Costs from Foodborne Illness in the United States (no mistaking the topic here, eh?). The study was authored by Robert Scharff, an assistant professor in the Department of Consumer Sciences at Ohio State University (and a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration economist). The report itself was sponsored by the Produce Safety Project at Georgetown University.

The most astounding revelation in this study is that Scharff came up with a new number for the cost of foodborne illness: $152 billion. What makes that figure such an eye-opener? Past official government estimates have topped only $35 billion.

“The cost of foodborne illness is significantly greater in this report than in some past studies, but only because this study included costs of all pathogens and a more comprehensive measure of economic cost,” wrote Scharff in the report. “It is my hope that the improvements made here will lead to better decision-making, both at the legislative and regulatory level.”

MORE…

And just when we were starting to think the storyline had gone stagnant: Last week the Food and Drug Administration stated that they had “some concerns” about health risks posed by bisphenol-A, or BPA, the chemical used to strengthen plastic that appears in food packaging, baby bottles and other reusable containers.

The statement goes against one the agency made in 2008 that said the chemical was safe. That decision was a disappointment to many in the environmental and medical community — a disappointment compounded by a report that came shortly after from the National Toxicology Program (part of the National Institutes of Health) criticizing the FDA’s stance.

So what made the FDA change its mind? Credit the progressive new attitude coming from the Obama administration, under whom the agency has taken aggressive steps to safeguard public health. There’s also been the increased media attention on studies linking BPA to various ailments, from cancer to impaired brain development.

“I think that they could no longer hide from the evidence,” said Alex Formuzis, spokesman for the Environmental Working Group, when I interviewed him earlier today. “The facts were so stacked against their former position that they had no place to go.”

The chemical and manufacturing industries, for their part, are stating that the evidence is inconclusive. The American Chemistry Council released a statement saying they are “disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well-founded.”

But consumers have already made up their mind. MORE…

When it comes to pesticides, potatoes are heavy hitters. They can receive up to 19 sprays in a single growing season. Farmers often spray on a weekly basis, or even more frequently to try to prevent blight. They also spray herbicides to kill the tops of the plants at the end of the growing season to make the underground tubers easier to harvest.

That’s why it’s so difficult to find organic potatoes, because the things are really tough to grow. It’s a high-value, but vulnerable, crop.

Every once in a while we hear from the Wisconsin Eco-Potato partnership, which was established in 1996 by the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association (WPVGA) and the University of Wisconsin. The goal has been to develop ways to minimize chemical use and promote sustainable farming. The effort has produced advances in integrated pest management, water conservation, soil protection and yields without the use of genetic modification.

In 2001, the group introduced the Healthy Grown label. In order to get it, farmers and their products are certified by Protected Harvest, an independent oversight organization created to monitor the overall effort. Healthy Grown has compiled an eight-year database tracing IPM and pesticide use, which is shared with the university and other organizations like the International Crane Foundation, the Defenders of Wildlife and the World Wildlife Fund.

“One of Healthy Grown’s greatest strengths is the collaboration between researchers, conservationists and growers,” notes A.J. Bussan, associate professor in the Department of Horticulture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Healthy Grown emerged from a targeted set of specific sustainability standards, but all of us continue to challenge those standards.” MORE…

In this Brave New World of bioterrorism, retailers who truly value their own in-house brands are presenting vendors with a Yellow Pages-size stack of forms to fill in for food safety purposes. All I can say is “Bring it on - it’s about time!”

The question I ask myself is why it took a terrorist attack to finally focus attention to the products pouring into our food supply.

One of the perks of my job is traveling the world to visit factories that manufacture food products. That said, one can only imagine what I’ve witnessed over the years — a veritable Clint Eastwood feast of “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”!

I am not sure that I can always consider this aspect of my job a perk. When you are living out of a suitcase for weeks on end, washing undergarments in the hotel sink, exhausted from too much travel, too much food, too much stimulation and far too little sleep, you finally arrive home only to have folks ask about your vacation!

A vacation for me means that I can set aside worrying about quality issues for a few short days, knowing that I’ve done my part. MORE…

Apps have been great for the natural foods industry. Long-time wellness consumers are used to creative thinking. I mean, back in the days before online shopping, if there was a natural/organic lifestyler who needed something special, they either did it themselves or tapped into the word-of-mouth network, shopped specialty catalogues or subscribed to newsletters.

Those inspired approaches to filling their pantries is serving them well as mobile technology continues its dizzying expansion. Indeed, a recent app in particular has the potential to satisfy all consumers with real-time data on food recalls. ReachEverywhere, developers of the Shopper iPhone Shopping Assistant application, announced that it is integrating real-time recall information from the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Now, both the FDA and USDA currently offer online access to the information (FDA even has its own app), but this new one promises to take the confusion out of trying to figure out which agency oversees the product in question.

According to my colleague, SN tech editor Michael Garry, “Users of the application who put an item on their list that is associated with a recall will automatically see the warning information for that product.”

In addition, ReachEverywhere, which launched personalized retailer circulars on the Shopper application one month ago, has added weekly circulars from Stop & Shop, Publix, Giant Food and Winn Dixie to the more than 100 existing retailers on the platform.

(Photo credit: Thibault Poix )

What’s more important to consumers: the safety of their food or the purity of it? That’s an important question, and one that doesn’t often get answered directly. Raw milk is the exception. It’s as straight-from-nature as you can get, yet it can contain harmful bacteria like salmonella and listeriosis. There’s been considerable tension between the two sides on the issue, and now the stakes have grown.

By some estimates, a million people in the U.S. regularly consume raw milk. That’s come off increasing demand over the past several years for whole, unprocessed foods, which advocates say possess vital nutrients that safety procedures like pasteurization eliminate. Raw milk has something of a reputation as a miracle healer, too. Parents have stories of how raw milk cured their child’s asthma, autism, Crohn’s disease, and cleared up their allergies.

For dairy farmers, this growing demand has created an alternative to the shamefully low prices offered for conventional and organic milk. According to a recent New York Times story, raw milk producers receive up to five or six times as much money per gallon — a real life-saver for struggling farmers. Methods of sale vary across the 23 states that allow the sale of raw milk. In California, you can find it in the grocery store, while in Virginia you can only drink it from a cow you own. MORE…

At first glance, the idea of food safety being environmentally sensitive seems extraneous. After all, the sole purpose of food safety is to make food safe — period. In the mind of most consumers, the procedures used are ancillary to the end result. Pasteurization has long been accepted, but other measures, such as irradiation, are only tolerated because everyone understands — and accepts — the necessity of its use.

That’s why it’s heartening to read about elements of sustainability in some newer food safety programs. Even better, some of the leaders in this area of the business are making ecology a foundation of their offerings. Here are alternatives that are just as effective as their predecessors, yet eco-friendly and therefore, better for consumers.

The first program that came to my attention comes from Eco-Safe Systems, based in Los Angeles (Purfresh is another company known to the industry). The company’s systems — applicable across the entire supply chain — use ozone to protect food and water supplies against the usual suspects in food poisoning, including salmonella, listeria and E. coli. That means there’s no chlorine, pesticides and bactericides residues on food. MORE…

The appeal of caffeinated alcoholic beverages is pretty limited. Federal officials said as much when they announced this morning that the Food and Drug Administration was cracking down on these drinks, which combines malt base in the 6%-8% by-volume range, with roughly 100 milligrams of caffeine (about the same as a cup of coffee) and guarana, taurine and other additives. The agency has sent letters to nearly 30 manufacturers asking them to prove the safety of these drinks.

In comments announcing the move, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, pointed out that the products have been targeted specifically at young people attending college.

“The increasing popularity of consumption of caffeinated alcoholic beverages by college students and reports of potential health and safety issues necessitates that we look seriously at the scientific evidence as soon as possible,” he said.

No one likes a hyper-alert drunk, particularly when they’re so inebriated they become a genuine danger to themselves and others. To the average person, the addition of caffeine seems to serve no other purpose than to keep a person awake, and alert, long enough to purchase or consume another beverage.

The nation’s two largest brewers, MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch have already agreed to discontinue their popular caffeinated alcoholic beverages, Tilt and Bud Extra, and Sparks and promised the FDA they would make none down the road. The companies being questioned now are include not only beer makers, but Diageo North America, makers of Smirnoff Raw Tea Malt Beverage, Constellation Brands
Products, with its Wide Eye label, and other manufacturers who offer caffeinated malt-based drinks. MORE…

The vast majority of foods found in the supermarket contain genetically modified ingredients. That’s a fact many farmers and agribusiness interests can be proud of — but for consumers, not so much. According to recent polls, 53% say they would not buy food if they knew it was genetically modified, while 87% say they want GMO-containing items to be properly labeled.

Assuming shoppers’ food knowledge continues to evolve as it has, it would appear the industry has set itself up for a massive backlash. Right? In reality, it seems people are mostly — as the 87% figure indicates — anxious for some transparency on the issue.

And that’s where the Non GMO Project comes in. Up to this point, labeling has been a scattershot affair. Organic certification is supposed to factor out GMO use, but recent science has shown it’s not doing the job. To fill the gap, hundreds of natural and organic manufacturers have started slapping their own “GMO-Free” labels on their products. But there’s no uniform standard to verify the integrity of these claims.

The Non GMO Project, which counts many of the major players in the natural and organic industry among its members, has established the first-ever voluntary standard to signify products that contain no GM ingredients. MORE…