Debates in Animal-based Food Production Safety
Modern food production practices include methods that have engendered safety concerns among scientists or the public and thus the appropriate government response and applicable laws are subject to debate. Two such examples include the use of synthetic growth hormones in dairy cows and subtherapeutic antibiotics in animal feed.
Synthetic Growth Hormones
Bovine somatotropin, also known as bovine growth hormone, is a protein hormone produced by the pituitary gland of cows. Cow milk contains naturally occurring bovine growth hormones. Scientists recognized that a synthetic form of this growth hormone could increase milk production and they created bioengineered forms, called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) and recombinant bovine growth hormone, collectively referred to as rbST. The Monsanto company created an rbST that increased milk production and the company submitted a new animal drug application to the FDA. In November 1993, the FDA approved the new animal drug application providing for the subcutaneous use of rbST in lactating dairy cows for this purpose.[1] The FDA explained that it approved the drug after determining that it was safe and effective for dairy cows, that rbST-treated milk was safe for humans, and that the process would not have a significant impact on the environment.[2] The FDA and a panel of experts recruited by the National Institutes of Health concluded that there was no significant difference between milk from rbST-treated and untreated cows.85,86
Members of the public were nonetheless concerned for several reasons.[3] [4] [5] First, Monsanto, the company that bioengineered rbST, was seen as exerting undue influence over the FDA, leading to theories of agency capture.[6] Further, critics argued that milk treated with rbST contained increased levels of an insulinlike growth factor substance, which had been theorized to stimulate premature growth and cancer in humans. Moreover, opponents argued that rbST increased the need for antibiotics in treated cows and the antibiotics remained in the milk, leading to a concern about antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Some dairy farmers, private companies such as Ben & Jerry’s, and the State of Vermont wanted increased labeling requirements to allow consumers to distinguish between rbST-treated and untreated milk.[7]
The FDA argued that it did not have the authority to require mandatory labeling for milk from treated cows because it found rbST to be safe and the milk to be the same.[3] The FDA did, however, issue guidance for industry members who want to voluntarily label milk and milk products as being derived from cows not treated with rbST. Thus, the FDA explained that in order for labels to avoid being misleading, they must “disclose facts that are material in light of representations made about a product or facts that are material with respect to the consequences that may result from use of the product.”[3] Therefore, the agency suggested the proper label should include the following two phrases or similar sentiment: This product is made “from cows not treated with rbST” and “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows.”[3] This guidance remains in effect today. The scientific debate surrounding rbST has died down for the most part, but food companies continue to distinguish their products through these labels.
Box 5.2 discusses The Case of Pink Slime.
BOX 5.2
The Case of Pink Slime
“Lean Finely Textured Beef” (LFTB) made national headlines under the disparaging nickname, “pink slime,” between 2009 and 2012. LFTB is a cheap, lean beef product used to make hamburgers. In the 1990s, the company Beef Products, Inc., was looking to expand its products to include inexpensive beef for burger patties.8 The company turned “fatty slaughterhouse trimmings into usable lean beef” by “liquefying the fat and extracting the protein from the trimmings in a centrifuge.”b This resulted in a product that was useable for burgers. However, LFTB was highly susceptible to E. coli and salmonella contamination, so the company added ammonia to kill the pathogens.c The FDA had approved ammonium hydroxide as a GRAS ingredient to be used in food produced according to Good Manufacturing Practices in 1974.d The USDA approved the resulting LFTB and its use in the school food program.8
The media began exposing LFTB as an ingredient in burgers, starting with a 2009 New York Times article and peaking in 2011, when celebrity chef Jamie Oliver displayed video footage on his television show of how pink slime was processed.' The meat processing industry launched a “Dude, It's BEEF” campaign in response, but this did not sway popular notions that pink slime was “disgusting.”g Even though initial safety concerns were suppressed, several fast food restaurants announced that they would cease using LFTB, and a petition successfully encouraged the USDA to give schools the choice of whether to use it.hi The USDA was quick to point out that there were no safety concerns and on March 22, 2012, the Under Secretary for Food Safety wrote on the USDA blog: “I believe it is important to distinguish people's concerns about how their food is made from their concerns about food safety. The process used to produce LFTB is safe and has been used for a very long time. And adding LFTB to ground beef does not make that ground beef any less safe to consume.”'
The USDA does not require meat companies to label LFTB or ammonium hydroxide if they add it to their beef products, and the FDA does not require it to be labeled if it is used as part of the food's processing, rather than as an ingredient. However, some beef-product companies requested voluntary labeling measures by the USDA to appease consumers.1* Other food products reportedly have ammonium hydroxide in them, but food companies do not publicize this factJ Now that the hubbub has died down, some schools are bringing LFTB backm and it seems to have fallen off the radar of the press and food safety advocates.
aMichael Moss. Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned. The New York Times. December 31, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=2
bMichael Moss. Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned. The New York Times. December 31, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=2
cMichael Moss. Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned. The New York Times. December 31, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=2
d21 CFR 184.1139.
eUnited States Department of Agriculture. USDA Announces Additional Choices for Beef Products in the Upcoming School Year. News Release No. 0094.12 . March 15, 2012. http://www.usda. gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2012/03/0094.xml&printable=true&contentidon ly=true
fhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/09/148298678/is-it-safe-to-eat-pink-slime
ghttp://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17615456
hBettina Elias Siegel. How My ‘Pink Slime' Petition Took Off. http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/06/pink-slime-rebellion-beef
'United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Announces Additional Choices for Beef Products in the Upcoming School Year. News Release No. 0094.12 . March 15, 2012. http://www.usda. gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2012/03/0094.xml&printable=true&contentidon ly=true
Jhttp://blogs.usda.gov/2012/03/22/setting-the-record-straight-on-beef/
kJim Avila. BPI Endorses USDA Voluntary Labeling of LFTB or ‘Pink Slime’
April 3, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/ bpi-endorses-usda-voluntary-labeling-of-lftb-or-pink-slime/
'Martinne Geller. Ammonia Used in Many Foods, Not Just “Pink Slime." Reuters. April 4, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-food-ammonia-idUSBRE8331B420120404
mhttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/pink-slime-schooMunches-96502_Page2.html
- [1] Marion Nestle. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism. Berkeley and LosAngeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003, p. 197.
- [2] 59 Federal Register 6279, 6279-6280 (February 17, 1994).
- [3] 59 Federal Register 6279, 6280 (February 17, 1994).
- [4] Marion Nestle. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism. Berkeley and LosAngeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003, p. 199.
- [5] Marion Nestle. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism. Berkeley and LosAngeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003, pp. 197-206.
- [6] Agency capture, or regulatory capture, is theory that explains what happens when a regulatory agency acts in ways that benefit the industry it is supposed to be regulating, rather than thepublic’s interest it is supposed to be protecting. Agency staff members are thus “captured by thosethey are ostensibly regulating.” Clifford Rechtschaffen. Deterrence v. Cooperation and the EvolvingTheory of Environmental Enforcement. 71 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1181, 1222 (1998).
- [7] Marion Nestle. Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechonology, and Bioterrorism. Berkeley and LosAngeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003, pp. 202-204.
- [8] 59 Federal Register 6279, 6280 (February 17, 1994).
- [9] 59 Federal Register 6279, 6280 (February 17, 1994).
- [10] 59 Federal Register 6279, 6280 (February 17, 1994).
