Latest news with #NationalChickenCouncil
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘People will die' if USDA doesn't limit salmonella in poultry: Doctor
(NewsNation) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture has withdrawn a Biden-era plan to limit salmonella levels in raw poultry, a move applauded by the National Chicken Council. Dr. Omer Awan, senior public health contributor for Forbes, tells NewsNation the move will only harm Americans. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
USDA Rolls Back Biden-Era Plans to Limit Salmonella in Raw Poultry
The Agriculture Department has scrapped a Biden-era proposal to limit salmonella in raw chicken and turkey products, saying it would be an 'overwhelming burden' on small producers. Food safety experts are crying fowl over the decision—'The message they seem to be sending to consumers is: you're on your own,' said Brian Ronholm of Consumer Reports. The policy, which had yet to come into effect, would have blocked the sale of meat contaminated with the bacteria that makes 1.3 million Americans sick each year. The National Chicken Council crowed about the cost of the measure, calling it 'legally unsound,' but consumer advocates argue they just couldn't be bothered to impose the rule. 'It was just an effort they weren't willing to make,' Sarah Sorscher from the Center for Science in the Public Interest said. The USDA insists the move will have no impact on food safety. Guess we'll all just have to wing it.
Epoch Times
25-04-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
USDA Withdraws Proposed Rule to Limit Salmonella in Raw Poultry
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced on Thursday that it is withdrawing a proposed rule that would have required poultry companies to limit the presence of salmonella bacteria in their products, ending an effort by the past Biden administration to reduce foodborne illnesses linked to contaminated meat. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) said the decision follows the review of more than 7,000 public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule, which was published in August 2024. The department stated it will 'evaluate whether it should update' current salmonella regulations, according to a Thursday The withdrawn rule would have required poultry companies to keep salmonella bacteria below a specific threshold and test for six strains most associated with it, with three found in turkey and three in chicken. Any products exceeding the standard or containing any of those strains would have been forbidden from sale and subject to recall. The FSIS explained that the proposed framework targeted raw chicken carcasses, chicken parts, comminuted chicken, and comminuted turkey products contaminated with certain salmonella levels and serotypes, which would have been classified as adulterated under the Poultry Products Inspection Act, according to the agency's April 24 notice. The agency also proposed stricter monitoring, sampling, and recordkeeping requirements for poultry processors, according to the same notice. The agency said it received 7,089 comments on the proposal, including feedback from industry trade associations, small and large poultry processors, consumer advocacy groups, academics, and state officials. Decision to Withdraw Key issues raised included questions about FSIS's legal authority, the scientific basis for the proposed standards, economic impacts, and the potential burden on small producers, according to the FSIS notice. 'While FSIS continues to support the goal of reducing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, the Agency believes that the comments have raised several important issues that warrant further consideration,' FSIS stated in its withdrawal notice. The decision to withdraw the rule was welcomed by the National Chicken Council, an industry trade group. 'We remain committed to further reducing Salmonella and fully support food safety regulations and policies that are based on sound science, robust data, and are demonstrated to meaningfully impact public health,' said Ashley Peterson, the council's senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs, according to the group's Peterson criticized the proposed framework as 'legally unsound,' based on 'misinterpretations of the science,' and likely to have 'no meaningful impact on public health.' She added that it would have led to 'an extraordinary amount of food waste' and higher costs for producers and consumers, according to the National Chicken Council. 'We appreciate today's announcement by FSIS and share their goal of protecting public health,' Peterson said, adding that the council looks forward to working with the agency on future policy. Sandra Eskin, a former USDA official who helped draft the plan, said the withdrawal 'sends the clear message that the Make America Healthy Again initiative does not care about the thousands of people who get sick from preventable foodborne salmonella infections linked to poultry,' according to the Associated Press. Sarah Sorscher of the Center for Science in the Public Interest compared the proposed rule to the 1994 ban on certain E. coli strains in ground beef, calling it a missed opportunity for a significant food safety victory. 'Make no mistake: Shipping more salmonella to restaurants and grocery stores is certain to make Americans sicker,' Sorscher said, according to the Associated Press. Earlier this month, the USDA From NTD News
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Europe rejects US chlorinated chicken, citing food safety concerns
(NewsNation) — President Donald Trump is pushing for more countries to import meat and poultry from America, but Europeans have long pointed to food safety concerns over U.S. chicken washed in chlorine. Jonathan Reynolds, the U.K. business secretary, recently told Sky News the country will 'never change' its food standards when asked if 'chlorinated chicken was on the table or off the table' during trade talks. The move comes after the European Union and the United Kingdom failed to avoid Trump's sweeping tariffs, in which the United States imposed a 20% tax on EU imports and a 10% tax on all U.K. imports. Trump: No one 'off the hook,' tech tariff exemptions temporary 'The U.K. maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products,' the White House said in a statement. In the U.S., chicken is sometimes treated with a chemical rinse, like chlorine, to kill bacteria before it's exported. The U.S. does not require processors to disclose whether their chicken has been chemically washed, creating an apparent transparency gap between American and European food standards. Chlorinated chicken, or chlorine-washed chicken, refers to poultry that is washed or dipped in water containing chlorine to kill bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella, according to the National Chicken Council. Local food banks dealing with canceled shipments from USDA Though the method has been deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture, critics argue it could encourage lower hygiene standards earlier in the production process. According to the National Chicken Council, less than 5% of U.S. poultry processing plants use chlorine in sprays or rinses, and most chlorine use in the industry is for cleaning equipment, not the meat itself. The EU first banned chlorine-washed chicken in 1997. European regulators allow chicken to be washed only with water or substances approved by the European Commission. Additionally, they require 'pre-harvest interventions' for poultry. Vaccinations or additives to chicken feed are used as safety measures instead of eliminating pathogens after the product is processed. While U.S. agencies consider chlorinated chicken safe, the European Commission warns consuming large amounts, equal to 5% of your body weight, could expose consumers to unsafe levels of chlorate. 'Long-term exposure to chlorate in food, particularly in drinking water, is a potential health concern for children, especially those with mild or moderate iodine deficiency,' according to the European Food Safety Authority. Target baby food is recalled over lead contamination Although the agency reports chemical substances in meat are unlikely to pose an immediate or acute health risk for consumers, some studies raise other concerns. Consumer Reports found in 2014 that 97% of 300 U.S. chicken breasts contained salmonella, E. coli and campylobacter and that nearly half contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria. A 2018 study from the University of Southampton found that chlorine washing was not completely effective in killing pathogens on fresh vegetables. The study suggested chlorinating foods 'can make foodborne pathogens undetectable' rather than eliminating them. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
16 Popular U.S. Foods That Are Banned In Other Parts Of The World
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links. American culture has been exported around the world, and with it, iconic foods such as hamburgers, hot dogs, and deep-fried chicken. Consumers in the United States have a mind-bogglingly wide range of products to choose from -- some of which contain ingredients that are not all that good for us. They are also the reason why a surprising number of items, grown or manufactured in the U.S., can't be shipped abroad. The internet is full of stories about home-grown foods that you can't eat in countries including Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, stopping some of our favorite items from following in the hamburger's footsteps. So, what gives? Why can't Australians cut into a loaf of U.S. bread, and what's Poland's problem with the breakfast staple Pop-Tarts? Strap in as we find out why 16 popular U.S. foods are banned in other parts of the world. Read more: 15 Discontinued Little Debbie Snacks We're Probably Never Getting Back In 2023, the National Chicken Council named broiler chicken the United States' most-eaten meat, with most of those birds coming from factory farms. Sadly, their cramped, often unsanitary living conditions are a long way from the idyllic image of farmyard birds pecking at dirt. It's also why U.S. chickens are washed in chlorine, as it is a good way of eliminating dangerous bacteria such as salmonella. Chlorinated chicken cannot be sold in the European Union and United Kingdom but not because of the bleaching process. The 1997 ban — which the U.K. maintained after Brexit — is aimed at the poor animal welfare standards which require chickens to be chlorinated in the first place. In 2008, following intense lobbying by the U.S., the World Trade Organisation tried to persuade E.U. countries to change their minds about the process, but they refused. Milk is big business in the United States, with output from dairy farms hitting over 26 billion gallons in 2023. Keeping up with that growing demand prompted farmers to use science for help. A synthetic version of a naturally occurring hormone bovine somatotropin (BST), known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), was developed and has been used in the U.S. since 1993 to increase production in dairy herds. However, it has also prevented American milk from being exported to several countries. While there is no evidence to show BST or rBST is harmful to humans, studies found it did increase the risk of mastitis and lameness in cows. Because of this risk to animal welfare, the sale and use of BST were banned in the E.U., the U.K., and Australia. In Canada, where rBST is also prohibited, dairy products made using U.S. milk are sold, but not always labeled as such, so consumers are urged to buy Canadian. Industrial farmers around the world rely on pesticides to grow crops and, for apple growers, a harvest that doesn't turn brown while in storage. In 2008, European Union safety regulators started asking pointed questions about the pesticide diphenylamine (DPA) — which prevents spoiling — which can sometimes break down into cancer-causing chemicals called nitrosamines. Despite limited evidence this reaction could happen when DPA is mixed with nitrogen, the European Food Safety Authority issued a blanket ban on treating apples with DPA in 2012. Two years later, EFSA officials cut the maximum permitted level of the chemical to 0.1 parts per million. In a 2010 study, tests of raw apples from the U.S. revealed that 80% were coated in DPA at an average concentration of 0.42 ppm. In 2014, the EPA Office of Pesticides confirmed there were no plans to change domestic limits from 10 ppm. In 2012, all hell broke loose after ABC reported on "pink slime" being used as a filler in ground beef products. It was made from mixed-up bits of fat, meat, and connective tissue that were flushed with ammonia gas to preserve them before being turned into a paste. The previous year, British chef Jamie Oliver had campaigned against the use of ammonium hydroxide in fast food, prompting McDonald's in the United States to stop using pink slime. Although consumers in the U.S. were surprised at what was being put into the ground beef they cooked at home, people in the E.U. were less so, because products made using mechanically separated meat, including pink slime, had long been banned since 2010. In 2012, Canada announced it was not permitting the use of ammonia in ground beef or meats during production. In 2017, five years after its report, ABC settled a defamation claim with a South Dakota meat producer for more than $177 million. There are two reasons why people in the E.U., Canada, or India have never sunk their teeth into one of the many types of U.S. bread: Potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide. The first is a flour additive used by breadmakers for fermentation and ripening. The E.U. is among several countries that have banned it due to the possibility it could cause cancer in humans. Potassium bromate is also prohibited in India and China, as well as several other countries, and restricted to industrial use in Canada. The second chemical, azodicarbonamide, is used to leaven and whiten bread dough and is recognized as safe by the FDA but deemed by other nations as posing a cancer risk. It has been banned as a food additive in the E.U. for many years, as well as in Australia. Potassium bromate and azodicarbonamide are among three ingredients the Center for Science in the Public Interest told the New York Post it hopes will be scrutinized more closely by FDA officials in the future. A plate of baby back ribs with a side order of ractopamine doesn't sound very appetizing, but that's what's served up by some industrial producers in the United States -- perfectly legally, as it's approved by the FDA. Ractopamine is added to pigs' animal feed to boost growth but it has been banned in the E.U. since 1996, followed by China in 2011, dealing a blow to potential U.S. suppliers as both markets are major consumers of pork. In 2012, the Taipei Times reported that, according to Professor Donald Broom of the University of Cambridge's Department of Veterinary Medicine, animals treated with ractopamine were more active and more difficult to handle. In 2024, the Food Animals Concerns Trust joined a lawsuit that urged the FDA to withdraw its approval of ractopamine or reduce the permitted residue levels in pigs. The United States is the world's largest producer, consumer, and exporter of corn, the majority of which is a genetically modified organism or GMO. While this science has helped make crops increasingly resistant to damage from bugs and disease, not everyone is convinced of its benefits. In the European Union, only foods or products containing authorized GMOs can be imported. Until 2024, only five maize crops were allowed before three more were authorized for 10 years by the European Commission. While that's potentially good news for U.S. corn growers and European consumers who can try cooking their delicious cobs in butter, trouble may be brewing much closer to home. In 2025, The Mexican government changed the country's Constitution to ban the planting of GMO crops and enshrine the country's native, heirloom corn species as "an element of national identity." The move could impact U.S. shipments of corn to Mexico, which accounts for 36% of its total exports. Sixteenth-century Spanish colonizers may have brought the peach to the United States, but since 2018, Spain and the rest of the European Union have decided they didn't want any U.S. imports of the fruit, thanks to the ban on neonicotinoids. This group of pesticides is widely used in the U.S. on a variety of crops, but their effect on pollinators, especially bees, has been catastrophic. A 2019 study found that many popular fruits and vegetables in the U.S. contained "low levels of neonicotinoids," while tests carried out by EWG in 2024 found traces of 59 different pesticides in peaches, while a single fruit could contain up to 19 different types of neonicotinoids. In 2024, a two-year ban on a similar pesticide, chlorpyrifos, was overturned in the U.S. following a legal battle between environmental groups and the EPA. That means numerous vegetables and fruits -- including peaches -- would again be sprayed with the harmful chemical. Launched in 1971, Skittles has been delighting sweet-toothed kids and adults for decades. That was, until the European Commission banned the food additive titanium dioxide, also known as E171, in 2022. It followed an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority which could not rule out the risk that the additive could have a carcinogenic effect on humans. E171 isn't the only ingredient that has given the E.U. pause over Skittles. The synthetic food dyes Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 are both used in the candies, which a 2021 California study said had an impact on the neurobehavior of some children. They are both banned in the U.K. but not in the E.U. Instead, products using these colorants are required to carry the following warning: "May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." alarmingly, the FDA's existing acceptable daily intake levels are based on data from around 50 years ago. An impressive 40% of people in the United States who enjoy soft drinks opt for Mountain Dew. But, if they go looking for their soda of choice elsewhere in the world, they are unlikely to find it in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and India. From August 2025, Mountain Dew will be increasingly hard to find in Canada, too. The reason? Bans on brominated vegetable oil or BVO. It's a stabilizer, made with a blend of vegetable oil and bromine, that allows citrus-flavored drinks to taste the same all the way down the bottle or can. Animal studies have found that brominated vegetable oil can lead to issues with the heart, thyroid, and liver, as well as potential bromism, which has symptoms including memory loss and ataxia. Although the FDA removed BVO from its list of products that are generally believed to be safe decades ago and placed restrictions on the amount that could be used, a lack of evidence of its harmful effects on humans prevented a full ban in the U.S. until 2024. What do cocktail cherries and Pop-Tarts have in common? It has nothing to do with the word toast: They both contain the color additive Red Dye No. 3, also known as E127 or erythrosine. While U.S. exports of the candied fruit containing E127 are permitted in the European Union and United Kingdom, the popular breakfast snack is not on the list of either country, so it ain't getting in. The synthetic color is the reason why. A petroleum-based product, Red Dye No. 3 is present in a wide range of products, including Pop-Tarts. Although animal studies linked it to cancer and the FDA banned its use in cosmetics in 1990, it took until 2025 for the administration to completely ban Red Dye No. 3 in foods. U.S. manufacturers and candy brands will have until January 15, 2027, to find alternative red colorants for their products. Who has enjoyed a Thanksgiving meal with a side of moist, moreish Stove Top Stuffing from Kraft Heinz? Families across the United States love it for its speed and convenience, but despite that popularity, even an upgraded version of the boxed stuffing is unlikely to appear on shelves in the European Union, Japan, or the United Kingdom. It's all down to restrictions on the use of preservatives butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) which both feature on the box's ingredient list. In the E.U., BHA, also known as E 320, is permitted in chewing gum, specific fats and oils, and vending machine milk powder, while BHT or E321 is allowed in chewable supplements and some emulsifiers. In the U.K., BHT's use is restricted to oral care products such as toothpaste and mouthwash, while in Japan, both preservatives can only be used in products including butter, fish and shellfish, mashed potatoes, and whale meat. Unlike some savory snacks, this iconic product has a dedicated following in the United States, but that didn't prevent Ritz Crackers from being banned across Europe because of trans fats. Artificial trans fatty acids can increase the risk of developing diabetes, heart disease or having a stroke. In 2003, Denmark pioneered the restriction of industrially produced trans fat to 2% per 100 grams of fats and oils across all foods. The European Union followed suit, as well as the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, while Iceland has all but banned trans fats. Although Ritz Original Crackers appear to now fall within the trans fat limit, it's too early for devotees outside the United States to start celebrating. According to the ingredients list, the snacks also contain palm oil, which has been banned in the E.U. since 2023. Little Debbie is a household name in the United States, but this popular brand of sweet treats is virtually unknown abroad. The company's ever-changing range includes packs of 12 chocolate-covered mini Swiss Rolls, which have been a family favorite since 1963. Unfortunately, they also fall foul of red tape, both in the European Union and United Kingdom. Little Debbie Swiss Rolls contain the synthetic food dye Yellow 5, which is prohibited in the U.K. However, in the E.U., because of its impact on kids who may be sensitive to artificial ingredients, any product sold in the bloc that contains the colorant must be labeled: "May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." Little Debbie doesn't have to bother, as its Swiss Rolls also contain palm oil, which has been banned in the E.U. since 2023 as part of the bloc's efforts to limit deforestation. Whether you keep 'em cool in the fridge or stash them in a cupboard, we all know that too many potato chips can be bad for us. So, when Procter & Gamble researchers stumbled across a fat alternative that was not absorbed by the body, they ran with it and used it in the WOW range of chips that included Doritos, Ruffles, and Lay's. Marketed as a healthier snack option, unfortunately, some consumers experienced unpleasant side effects, including abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Although the FDA backed Olestra, it has never been approved in Canada. In 1996, an article in Canada's Maclean's magazine sounded the alarm from scientists, while two years later, researchers said Olestra was safe and anticipated its approval in the country. They are still waiting. In the European Union and the United Kingdom, the situation is less clear. Olestra could come under the E.U. trans fat restriction, and it doesn't appear on the U.K.'s list of approved additives, but there are no details of an outright ban. They may not be all that in the flavor department, but Kellogg's Froot Loops are a breakfast staple in millions of households across the United States. Sadly, they haven't always been so popular overseas. The ingredients are a laundry list of restricted items in the European Union, including the preservative butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), which can be used in certain food items, and breakfast cereal is not among them. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, BHT can only be used in oral hygiene products. And that's not all. Froot Loops' iconic colors are the result of synthetic dyes, including Blue 1 -- also known as brilliant blue FCF -- which many sources claim is banned in the European Union and other countries. Happily, the colorant was re-evaluated in 2010 and is no longer prohibited. The New South Wales government in Australia also allows the use of brilliant blue FCF, albeit to a maximum limit of 290 milligrams per kilogram in processed foods. However, in 2027, California will become the first U.S. state to ban several dyes, including those used in Froot Loops, from being served in schools. Read the original article on Foodie.
