Nevada: How the De Facto Ban Works
August 6, 2024By Pete Kennedy, Esq.
2024 Annual IAFP Meeting in Long Beach, California
The International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) held its annual meeting from July 14-17. The IAFP meeting is the largest food safety conference in the world; this year, over 3,000 people from industry, government and academia attended. The meeting is the conference for the industrial food system; this year, as in the past, Merck Animal Health and Cargill were major sponsors. Labor shortages and broken down supply chains over the past few years have made the food safety regulators’ jobs more thankless than ever. The regulators might have to deal with a foodborne illness outbreak that contains ingredients sourced from multiple countries where the traceability is difficult. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which went into effect in 2011, was supposed to reduce the number of foodborne illnesses in the U.S. A high ranking FDA official provides a regulatory update at the meeting each year; until the 2023 conference, that official acknowledged that the number of foodborne illnesses has remained flat. The past two years, the official giving the regulatory update hasn’t covered the matter; with the noticeable deterioration in quality in the conventional food supply, the likelihood is that foodborne illness has not declined.
A solution to the food safety problem would be to decentralized food production and deregulate both food production and distribution at the state and local level—a move attendees at the conference do not consider; their job is to figure out and implement improvements to food safety under the existing industrial paradigm. Nevertheless, the IAFP meeting is an important event to follow; it can serve as an incubator for laws and policies that have an effect on the local food system.
The following is a review of some topics covered at this year’s meeting.
Bird Flu—Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)
With reports on the bird flu “pandemic” being blared in the media daily, a panel consisting of federal government regulators (FDA, USDA, CDC) and individuals from academia and industry convened to discuss what to do about the outbreak of HPAI that had first spread to dairy cattle towards the end of March.1 The panelists lamented how the public was not listening to their warnings not to consume raw milk; in May, one polling firm estimated that demand for raw milk had risen as high as 65% since the onset of the “pandemic”. The panel members spoke about how social media such as TikTok and Instagram are influencing the public to purchase raw milk. One panel member thought the public was buying raw milk out of fear. Another panelist was closer to the truth when he acknowledged that mistrust of government, academia and industry has led to an increase in the consumption of raw milk. Accurate science was what the panel thought could stop or slow down the increase in raw milk consumption.
Another reason brought up in the discussion about why the consumption of raw milk was going up was a fear of industrial food and not knowing where your food was coming from. One panelist thought the consumer would support locally produced pasteurized milk. A panel member resolved to gather more information on why consumers think raw milk is the right thing. The panel agreed that HPAI was going to be around for a while and that it would be important to harmonize messaging with partners whether they be in the federal government, state government, or in industry.
Reports are that labs are using the notoriously inaccurate PCR test to test for HPAI; numerous labs during COVID were running the test at 40 cycles or more where the chances of a false positive test result were high. Two employees for a lab exhibiting at the IAFP conference tradeshow guessed that their lab was running the PCR test at 45 cycles to test for HPAI. Interestingly, an official with the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources stated, “PCR tests are only viable up to 30 cycles, so these labs would likely run no more than 30 cycles.”2 Massachusetts has been the only state so far to require raw milk dairies to test for bird flu; so far, all milk samples tested have been negative for HPAI.
Cronobacter
Another talk impacting raw milk at IAFP was a panel discussion on cronobacter3, a pathogen found mainly in powdered infant formula. A speaker at a past IAFP conference disclosed that there is a 20% mortality rate for infants infected with the pathogen. A panelist at the 2024 conference stated that cronobacter can survive in the powdered formula up to five years. Another panelist said that cronobacter has characteristics of both salmonella and listeria. Takeaways from the panel discussion were that cronobacter is ubiquitous in the environment and that there’s still lots to be learned about the pathogen.
In 2022 an Abbott Laboratory plant in Michigan shut down after infant formula produced in it was linked to deaths and illnesses caused by cronobacter. Shortly after the shutdown, traffic to a page on raw milk infant formula on the Weston A. Price Foundation’s website went up 1,000% as demand for raw milk surged. Much of the panel discussion centered on how difficult and complex the cleaning process is in a plant producing powdered infant formula; profit margins are high so firms in the business have the incentive to stay in even though the risks are considerable compared to most foods. It would not be surprising if future problems with cronobacter occur in infant formula plants, directly leading to further jumps in the demand for raw milk.
Food Fraud
One of the more eye-opening sessions at IAFP was a panel discussion on food fraud4—something that affects 10% of the commercial food supply according to a speaker at the session. Food fraud is especially present with honey, oils, spices, fish, and juices. Food fraud is the intentional adulteration and mislabeling (misbranding) of products; one trick of the trade is altering expiration dates on the label, and another is putting a low quality product in the packaging and labeling used by a competitor and passing that product off as the competitor’s. Undeclared allergens on food labels are also a problem.
Protecting against food fraud is a complex and arduous process for a business. Different sectors within a firm work on it from product development to quality assurance to procurement. Tracking supply chains, vulnerability (to fraud) assessments, verifying authenticity (e.g., GMO-free, organic, country of origin), lab testing ingredients or finished food products, and being in compliance with legal requirements are all part of the process. The world of food fraud is great incentive for buying directly from a farmer you know and trust.
Cell Cultured Meat (CCM)
Investors have spent billions on cell cultured meat but so far there is very little product on the market. Pre-market approval from FDA is necessary to sell cell cultured meat; that agency has joint jurisdiction with USDA in regulating that product. In IAFP session on cell cultured meat (CCM)5, a speaker said that FDA had only granted approval for two cell cultured poultry products, and no approval for any beef or pork products yet. Another speaker remarked that price and perfection for cell cultured meat are not there. The legal framework to navigate to get approval is difficult. A typical CCM product will have anywhere from 60 to 100 inputs (ingredients); FDA evaluates each to determine whether it is a food additive recognized in the law or, in most cases, whether it is GRAS (generally recognized as safe). One speaker remarked that the infrastructure for the CCM industry is lacking; there is no large-scale commercialization of the product. Another said that pathogens such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli in CCM are a problem. There was a comment that, with the expense of manufacturing CCM, there was little product available. One of the speakers disclosed that the U.S. is a test market for CCM and that much of the investment in the product was European. The upshot of the session was that CCM is not having success getting established in the market; the speakers at the session spent little or no time addressing the complete lack of demand for CCM.
Attending the IAFP conference is an affirmation of how important it is to build out a parallel food system; the pace which favorable laws and infrastructure for a prosperous local food system is rounding into place needs to increase.
Footnotes:
1. Anderson N, Detlefsen C, Nichols M, Martin N, Suarez D, & Sinatra J. (2024, July 16). LB – Late Breaking Session – Responding to an Outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). [Panel discussion]. IAFP 2024 Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA. https://iafp.confex.com/iafp/2024/onlineprogram.cgi/Session/10155
2. Cahill M. (2024, August 28). Government email. MA Dept. of Agricultural Resources Div. of Animal Health.
3. Clifford D, Farber J, Gollinger M, Hanlin J, van der Sanden J, & Warren B. (2024, July 15). RT11 – Cronobacter spp. Control: Bridging Knowledge Gaps and Taking Action. [Panel discussion]. IAFP 2024 Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA. https://iafp.confex.com/iafp/2024/onlineprogram.cgi/Session/9571
4. Burke J, de Leonardis D, Jorgens A, & Winkel, C. (2024, July 15). RT10 – Think Like a Criminal – The Dark World of Food Fraud. [Panel discussion]. IAFP 2024 Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA. https://iafp.confex.com/iafp/2024/onlineprogram.cgi/Session/9766
5. Anandappa A, Overbuy K, Pantano A, Rainer N, & Yang L. (2024, July 17). S64 – Cultivating Meaty Cells – A Perspective Focus on Food Safety, Regulatory, and Experiences. [Conference symposium]. IAFP 2024 Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA. https://iafp.confex.com/iafp/2024/onlineprogram.cgi/Session/9808
