Earlier today, the AVMA testified before the U.S. Congress – talking about advances to animal health in the livestock industry and explaining how food safety and animal and human health are intertwined. The hearing went well, and as promised, you’ll find the link to the testimony below.

Speaking for the AVMA was Dr. Christine Hoang, assistant director of the AVMA’s Scientific Activities Division. Dr. Hoang addressed the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, which is part of the Committee on Agriculture.

One highlight from Dr. Hoang’s oral testimony:

“Our profession has made many advances in animal health and food safety – in areas such as the development and implementation of animal disease control programs and biotechnology. Other successes through collaborative efforts include a decline in foodborne illness from meat and poultry products as well as a decline in the prevalence of foodborne pathogens, including Salmonella, associated with meat and poultry and resistance of those organisms."

The hearing also covered the use of antibiotics by veterinarians to treat food animals. As you may recall, the AVMA testified in June before a U.S. Senate committee about this subject. You can read the testimony from the June hearing here.

One more thing from today’s hearing: Dr. Hoang again reiterated the importance to food safety of having systems that monitor the use of drugs in livestock – and reminded the subcommittee how desperately these systems need additional funding. This – especially the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD)’s dire need for funding – shouldn’t come as news to regular readers of this blog. We’ve been telling you for months that FARAD is a critical food safety program at risk.

Read the complete written testimony from today’s hearing here.

Ever find yourself a little overwhelmed in the grocery store? And we’re not talking about shopping on an empty stomach. Your head is spinning, trying to decipher the meanings behind labels screaming “Organic!” and “Natural!” It’s enough to send you running and screaming toward the Cinnamon Toast Crunch in search of comfort and clarity. So with all these different labels on our food, you have to ask, “What’s the difference?”

Plenty. A long, long time ago in a land far, far away (otherwise known as Washington, D.C., circa 1990 – and ok, some of us still remember 1990 like it was yesterday), Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). This legislation set forth national standards for organically produced agricultural products so consumers know products marked “organic” are held to a set of uniformed standards.

Short story is, a product can be considered “organic” if it is produced with all-natural, non-synthetic substances, and products made with synthetic additives, well, can’t. And before you start panicking over synthetic additives, it’s important for us to point out that these additives are perfectly safe and have been the norm for decades. So, organic foods differ from natural foods in that natural foods are minimally processed with preservatives, sweeteners, colors and other additives. Organic foods must be completely free of these additives. Also, foods labeled “natural” are not subject to government regulations like organic foods are.

It’s important to remember the term “organic” doesn’t just mean the food itself, but how it’s produced. For a crop to be considered “organic,” it must be raised without using most pesticides or fertilizers, both petroleum and sewage sludge-based. Organic farmers use mulch and manure, as well as sophisticated crop rotation as methods to manage weeds. Pests and diseases are reduced through the use of different insects, birds and traps.

Still confused? The OFPA and the National Organic Program (NOP) established a set of standards for the labels. Obviously, products labeled “100% organic” are made up of only organically produced ingredients. At least 95% of the ingredients in products labeled “organic” must be organically produced. Foods meeting these requirements can also carry the USDA Organic seal.

If a product is processed but contains at least 70% organic ingredients, the label can read “made with organic ingredients” and list no more than three of the ingredients on the display label. So if you buy a can of soup labeled “made with organic vegetables” you know the ingredients are at least 70% organic.

Don’t forget, there’s no such thing as a free organic lunch. Organic products typically cost more than conventional foods because of more expensive farming practices, government regulations and smaller crop yields. Also, since organic foods are produced without additives or preservatives, they have a tendency to deteriorate faster than conventionally processed foods. Plus the lack of preservatives makes organic products more vulnerable to parasites and bacteria, and may be more likely to be recalled for contamination.

So are organic foods, with their lack of pesticides and additives, the healthier choice? Yes and no. The USDA does not claim organic food is safer or more nutritious than conventional products, and often the fat and caloric content are indistinguishable between the two. But there are some health benefits motivating consumers to shop for organic foods. For example, people with food allergies or who are sensitive to preservatives might prefer organic foods to conventional ones. Additionally, many organic foods contain higher levels of antioxidants. Some consumers are attracted to organic foods because of a perceived difference in flavor.

Wow that’s a lot to process. Grocery store is a lot less intimidating. Now where’s that Cinnamon Toast Crunch aisle, again? Twelve, right?

Let’s take a brief break from FARAD (which is still needs your help), and talk about something different for a minute, ok? Health advocates are warning the public about the newest scourge poisoning them, stunting their children’s intellectual growth (if they’re lucky enough to have children, because it’s also making them sterile), and contributing to memory loss in adults. What was I just writing about?

We’re talking, of course, about vegetables… from your garden. Huh? It may sound like virulent anti-gardening propaganda, but, in fact, it is not. If you grow your own veggies at home and happen to live in an urban area: take note!

An Argonne National Laboratory study concluded that “many urban garden soils are contaminated with hazardous levels of lead” and also found that garden vegetables can accumulate lead when grown in contaminated soils. The University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which tests soil for lead, estimates that one in 10 household gardens has concerning levels of lead in the soil.

This is one bit of information you should try to hide from your children, or you may never get them to eat a vegetable again. “Johnny, eat your broccoli!” “Stop poisoning me! I want a fudge sundae!”

Most lead poisoning comes from lead-paint chips and dust inside older homes, but experts believe that consuming vegetables from lead-contaminated gardens can contribute to lead poisoning. How did it get there? Many apple orchards once used lead arsenate as a pesticide, and another contributor was leaded gasoline, which is also no longer used. But much of the lead in contaminated soil is suspected to come from old house paints.

For decades, poisonous lead paints were the norm for adding color to American homes. The colors really were just so vibrant and durable and the paints were so inexpensive, and … well, you get the picture. Lead paint, or at least paint with a substantial, dangerous amounts of lead, wasn’t banned until 1978. Today, paints for residential use cannot contain more than 0.06 percent lead.

Unfortunately, lead, as a well-known heavy metal, doesn’t just wash away in the rain. Once it’s in our homes, and our backyards, it’ll stay there until it’s removed.

Fortunately, there are some cheap and easy solutions for gardeners. For one, the University of Massachusetts Amherst offers soil testing ($9 for a lead test). Secondly, new soil, perhaps in some lovely decorative raised gardening beds, is also relatively inexpensive … cheap as dirt (sorry). Lastly, it can be controlled. Cornell University provides a helpful article about how to minimize lead in garden vegetables.

So this post is about a possible food safety concern right in your backyard … literally. The solution is relatively simple, no need to panic. Breath! Breath! Breath! Just relax and get your veggies at the supermarket until you test your soil for lead. And don’t eat any of the zucchini your aunt is constantly trying to pawn off on you until her backyard is tested too!

Here we go again. The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) will shut down at the end of the month if Congress does not approve funding for the program. After 26 years of helping keep our food supply safe, the program will be allowed to die.

FARAD is the primary source of scientifically based recommendations for withdrawal intervals after extra-label drug use. It is also the primary source of residue mitigation information when food animals are exposed to environmental contaminants. FARAD has been in existence since 1982 and is overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA CSREES).

Since 2000, FARAD has received funding through congressional earmarks, but in 2007 and 2008, FARAD did not receive any funding from Congress. At the last minute, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine stepped in and provided funding that will keep FARAD open until the end of September 2008.

AVMA is working with Members of Congress, the executive branch and stakeholders to find a long-term solution to FARAD's funding difficulties. Right now, there's $800,000 in the Senate Appropriations Bill for FY09 and $400,000 in the House's version. But that's not enough-and, given the political atmosphere, it is doubtful that Congress will pass any appropriations bills this year.

Call us semi-pleased with the action thus far – because these amounts fall far short of the $2.5M/year needed to keep FARAD functioning. In the short-term, we are workin g on getting funding into the Domestic Supplemental Spending Bill, which may be considered in September. This may help bridge the gap until FY09 monies become available next spring.

At the same time, the GRD staff will continue to work with members of both the House and the Senate, USDA and FDA to ensure that an appropriate amount of funding is committed to the FARAD program in order to make it viable on a long-term basis.

How can you help? Every voice counts! Your congressional representatives need to hear from you. Every phone call, letter or email they receive about FARAD helps inch this vital program toward survival. Please click here to learn more about FARAD and click here to Take Action immediately.

You’ve probably heard all kinds of wild ideas and theories about the idea of zapping food with radiation. Well, forget them. Irradiated food has been proven safe to eat and has been found to be the best method to prevent outbreaks of E. coli and Salmonella in fresh produce.

What brings this up is that on August 21, the FDA approved the use of irradiation on bagged spinach and iceberg lettuce. Not really news, since the FDA had already approved irradiation for a number of foods … including meat and poultry, oysters, clams, mussels and spices. But most folks weren’t paying attention the first time around.

The use of irradiation by food producers will be voluntary for now… and there’s an economic downside -- irradiation can be costly to food producers, who either have to buy the expensive equipment or pay an outside firm to do it for them. This could increase the cost of bagged spinach and lettuce (up to 5 cents per pound).

One might ask, “If irradiation is such a great method for killing contamination, why not approve irradiation for all vegetables?” The answer is that, while iceberg lettuce and spinach are the first two fresh produce products approved for irradiation, there are several more under review -- including tomatoes, peppers and other lettuces. So other veggies might be coming to your local market sooner rather than later.

As more and more foods are approved for irradiation, this will undoubtedly become a more “heated” topic among consumers and public health care officials in the future. Stay tuned and we’ll bring you that news as it happens.

To learn more, visit:

• Food Irradiation: A Safe Measure (FDA)
• Is irradiated food safe? How is it labeled? (FDA)
• Food Safety Issues: Food Irradiation (AVMA)
• AVMA Policy: Position on Food Irradiation