Ever since children started walking door-to-door collecting candy on Halloween, parents have been concerned about the safety of the sweets dropped into their bags. In years past, people might have worried about razorblades in candy apples. But this year, people will surely be more concerned about melamine. KeepOurFoodSafe.org is working to keep our readers up-to-date on this evolving situation.

Melamine is an industrial chemical that has been linked to the deaths of pets and a massive pet food recall in America in 2007, and now is involved in a massive milk powder and baby formula contamination crisis in China. To date, 53,000 children in China have been sickened by melamine and four have died this year.

As milk powder is also a common ingredient in sweets, the chemical has now been found in some candies in Europe, Southeast Asia and America. There have been no reported illnesses or deaths in this country, but the Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning to consumers to avoid White Rabbit Creamy Candies. Although this recall is in effect, there is concern that these candies are still available on store shelves. Melamine has also been found in Koala's March cookies in the United States, and the FDA has issued a recall on these as well. The FDA has also issued a warning to consumers against consuming a variety of Chinese products, including YILI, Blue Cat and Mr. Brown drinks, and, of course, any Chinese produced baby formulas. There are no Chinese-made baby formulas approved for sale in America, but officials worry they could find their way onto some store shelves anyway. Melamine has also been found in an edible chocolate spread sold in sex shops in England, in Cadbury chocolates in China for export to Australia and Taiwan, and in milk, yogurt and other milk products in Italy. So a fair amount of prudence is a good idea at this point.

How did this happen? Well, it should be stated that melamine should never be put in food. But the innocuous-looking powder has been added to food ingredients—like milk power this year and in pet food ingredients in the past —to make an ingredient test higher in protein levels than it actually is.

While any melamine in food should be avoided, if you are unlucky enough to ingest a little bit of it, you should be okay. The FDA states “In food products other than infant formula, the FDA concludes that levels of melamine and melamine-related compounds below 2.5 parts per million do not raise concerns.” Tests have shown that small amounts of melamine can be excreted by animals, including livestock, and presumably people. If an animal or person consumes a great deal of melamine -- which was the case in the pet food recall where the pets’ diets had little or no variety or in the current baby formula crisis where babies were fed little other than the contaminated formula -- it can cause renal problems, sometimes leading to death. In last year’s pet food crisis, melamine combined with another contaminant, cyanuric acid, resulting in the formation of crystals in the kidneys. The deaths and illnesses associated with this year’s milk powder recall are still under investigation.

The problem with Chinese dairy products seems pretty widespread. Traces of melamine have been found in formula produced by 21 Chinese dairies and dairy products produced by 15 additional companies. The FDA estimates that it inspects less than 1 percent of all food products imported into the United States, and that doesn’t take into account smuggling. While small doses of melamine are not believed to be deadly, the long-term impacts of ingesting the chemical have really never been studied.

Why isn’t more known? Because nobody could have predicted that people would end up eating melamine. Before last year’s pet food recall, nobody even thought to test for melamine in foods, because it’s not supposed to be there. As a result, KeepYourFoodSafe.org advises a modest dose of level-headed prudence this Halloween … but there’s no need to be terrified.

Ok, so maybe it’s because Halloween is coming up and everyone has trick-or-treating, ghosts, goblins and monsters on their minds, but when the term “genetic engineering” is thrown around, most people think of crazy scientists piecing together body parts to make some sort of monster (or glow in the dark fish). But fear not…genetic engineering isn’t necessarily scary or confusing. As a matter of fact, genetic engineering has allowed scientists to develop new and innovative technology, and there are tons of benefits for consumers and producers as well.

Genetic engineering refers to the combination of two pieces of DNA (the use of recombinant DNA, or rDNA techniques) to create new traits in an organism. Basically, an animal or organism is considered genetically altered if its genes have been modified, or if genes from a different animal are added. Animals and crops can be genetically modified to produce healthier foods and medicines for consumers, or help farmers cut costs by raising crops that are able to withstand pests and diseases.

Recombinant DNA techniques have been around for quite a while, and there’s a good chance the food we already eat has been genetically altered. Scientists started using them in the 1980s to create crops modified to resist bugs and weeds the same way they would if the farmer had used pesticides and herbicides instead. It’s a pretty common practice in agriculture to modify corn and soy crops with pest resistant genes. Genetic engineering has also been successfully used in medicine. By altering the genetic code of certain microbes, scientists can use the same bacteria that causes colds to create inexpensive and effective medicines. And the grilled cheese sandwich you ate for lunch? There’s a good chance it contained genetically altered microorganisms as well, since they are commonly used in baking, brewing and cheese-making.

Recently, the FDA proposed regulations allowing for the commercial use of genetically altered animals. This is pretty exciting because, as a result, cheaper medicines and more nutritious food may become available to consumers. Different types of genetically engineered animals are in development, but this research is still in the laboratory stage and has yet to be approved for commercial use.

If the new FDA guidelines are approved, more genetically altered animals could become available to consumers. Scientists are now using rDNA technology to develop animals that can produce medicines, such as insulin, and be a source of cells, tissue and organs for human transplants. The production of food animals, like pigs with high levels omega-3 fatty acids, are also in the developmental stages with a goal of providing healthier meats.

Despite the concerns many may have towards “Frankenfoods,” we’ve been eating genetically engineered foods for years. And the new FDA regulations should help ensure that genetically engineered foods enter the market with their safety assured. Producers seeking FDA approval will be required to show that food from a genetically engineered animal is not only safe for consumption, but that the process does not harm the animal’s health.

So stay tuned. The FDA is accepting public comments on these guidelines until November 18. If they’re approved, hopefully by next Halloween we’ll be able to modify treats to be sugar and calorie free. What’s that? We already have rice cakes? Oh.

Read more: Genetically engineered animals in the food supply [JAVMA News]

Plastic water bottles have a strange place in the lives of healthy Americans. For decades, health-conscious people have carried them around all day to be able to regularly drink fresh, healthy water. But now there is new concern that an ingredient in plastic water bottles, bisphenol A (BPA)—common in bullet-proof glass, water containers, dental sealants, microwave oven dishes, and epoxy resins that line the inside of cans of food—might be unhealthy. What’s more concerning is that BPA is also present in many plastic baby bottles.

In an effort to keep you up-to-date on the ongoing debate about BPA, we’ve put together some information for your consideration. Keep in mind, the AVMA doesn’t have a stance on this particular issue, and it seems the jury is still out on BPA. The FDA, on the other hand, has issued statements on the safety of BPA, but left the door open to reassess its findings. Many studies have shown little problem with BPA at the low levels found in consumer products like cans and bottles. But at high levels, BPA in lab animals has been shown to cause pre-cancerous lesions in mammary glands and the prostate. The best idea right now is to make informed decisions.

Why shouldn’t we just follow the FDA’s analysis? Well, there have been studies that are concerning, primarily one published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicating that there is a correlation between BPA and heart disease, diabetes and other metabolic disorders. In a nutshell, the study found that people with the highest urinary levels of BPA were more than twice as likely to report ever being diagnosed with cardiovascular disease or diabetes, compared to people with the lowest levels.

There is a concern that BPA could impact reproduction and child development. Scientists are concerned that BPA may mimic the female hormone estrogen in the human body, causing a number of potential problems. But a study published this year by the U.S. National Toxicology Program found “there is no direct evidence that exposure of people to bisphenol A adversely affects reproduction or development.” That said, the study also stated that it is possible that BPA does have an impact on reproduction. Canadian legislators have taken action to ban BPA from baby bottles, and many stores, like Wal-Mart, have announced plans to remove baby bottles containing BPA from store shelves.

If you decide that perhaps you would like to avoid BPA in products you and/or your children use, don’t worry, manufacturers are very responsive to those concerns. The easiest way to avoid it is to switch to glass or metal containers, but that’s not required. BPA-free plastic baby bottles and other products are already widely available. Contact the manufacturer for more information.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Scientists (NIEHS) has reviewed numerous studies and, like the FDA, isn’t recommending people flee from BPA. Instead, it issued a statement reporting “some concern,” and offered some simple tips on how to avoid it if you are concerned. For example, the NIEHS recommends against heating food in a plastic microwave dish, as this seems to increase the amount of BPA transferred from the plate into the food.

We at Keep Our Food Safe hope you’ll seek out additional information and make an informed decision on BPA.

A couple of weeks go, we talked about the differences between “organic” and “natural” food. Since then, many of you have called, written, texted, faxed and emailed us, demanding that we discuss organic meat… and explain what, exactly, it is. Well, here we go…

Just like the organic foods we talked about two weeks ago, there are certain standards that meat has to meet in order to be considered and labeled organic.

Food animals raised on an organic farm need to consume organic feed and have access to the outdoors. These animals are not administered antibiotics or growth hormones, either. In order to minimize diseases in organic food animals, farmers use methods such as rotational grazing, different housing systems and “organic” or “natural” diets, as opposed to synthetic growth hormones, antibiotics and the majority of modern, synthetic medications. Instead, they use older, non-synthetic substances that our great-great grandfathers used a century ago. Unfortunately, these drugs have not gone through the rigorous review and approval process like the newer drugs have. Consequently, we don’t have good information about the effectiveness and safety of the old drugs.

While organic production may have its ups and downs, it’s considered to be a safe and healthy food source but not any healthier or safer than conventionally produced food. Some studies show organically grown meat to have higher levels of bacterial contamination, but the bacteria that are present are sometimes less resistant to antibiotics. So if a foodborne illness does occur that requires treatment with an antibiotic, which is not common, then the antibiotic treatment may have a higher chance of success. But the trade-off may be more cases of foodborne disease.

Food veterinarians have experienced some difficulty treating ill organic livestock because they had a limited list of remedies for these animals. If an animal on an organic farm is sick, veterinarians now have a short list of the newer synthetic treatments that they can use to relieve pain. But food animal veterinarians still cannot use antibiotics. If the animal is treated with a non-listed substance, it can no longer be part of organic production. The organic standards recommend that necessary treatment be given to the animal and the animal be removed from organic production. But we fear that many animals could be denied appropriate medical care so the farm can remain organic.

This doesn’t sit well with the AVMA. While we recognize the interest in organically produced food, the well-being of food animals should not be compromised in the process, and medically necessary treatments should not be avoided to preserve organic status. The AVMA proposed that the ill animals should be treated with the best drug available to make them well. If the drug is a newer synthetic drug, the animal should be able to be returned to the organic classification after an extended withholding period. But it’s comforting to know the USDA has approved amendments that allow a few chemicals to be used in a few species of animals for pain management purposes to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for organic livestock. But antibiotics need to be added to permit reliable treatment of disease.

It’s a sad, sad day for food safety in America. Despite our best efforts to convince Congress, USDA and FDA to come up with long-term funding for FARAD, the critical food safety resource is permanently shutting down. The result: information essential to protecting America’s food supply is being left in the lurch.

FARAD – The Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank – began shutting down yesterday. For 26 years, FARAD has been used by veterinarians, livestock producers, and state and federal regulatory and extension specialists to ensure that drug, environmental and pesticide contaminants do not end up in meat, milk, and eggs. This shouldn’t come as news to our regular readers. We’ve been telling you about the importance of FARAD for months.

The program needed an immediate cash infusion to stay open, and, ultimately, long-term funding of $2.5 million per year to continue its critical work. Really, that’s all it needed… less than a penny per American to help make sure that drugs and pesticides don’t end up in our food. A penny per American, folks. That’s it.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has been leading efforts to secure funding for FARAD, which is administered by the USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and operates out of North Carolina State University, the University of Florida and the University of California-Davis. The AVMA worked with Congress to have language authorizing FARAD at $2.5 million inserted in this year’s Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the USDA never incorporated the funding in its budget, and Congress has provided neither emergency funding, nor passed the agriculture appropriations bill that could have funded the program. Oh and, FDA hasn’t coughed up any pennies either.

It’s tragic that a program that costs so little yet does so much to keep our food supply safe is not being funded. Again, we’re talking about pennies, folks.

The last-ditch hope of keeping FARAD from completely closing is for the USDA or stakeholders to fund the program. The AVMA is planning an emergency stakeholder meeting to discuss the future of FARAD.

In the interim, we urge all Americans to call the USDA at 1-202-720-1542 and tell them to immediately provide $2.5 million in emergency funding for FARAD.