Fox news had a story recently on the lack of concern shown by the new administration because a nominee has not been named for the position of USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety. It certainly is not because of a lack of trying.
Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack is searching for the right candidate. Most have yet to pass the requirement to have not lobbied Congress to vote a certain way.
Now I bet that there are thousands of qualified candidates that could pass that test. Why aren't scientists being considered?
Apparently the meat industry has given our Ag Secy a list of names that would support their initiatives and that they could live with.
Now, Food Safety is certainly something that we believe is central to the health and welfare of our citizens. Why would we choose someone who not be impartial? Knowledge of science and industry, and the ability to make sound judgments and reach consensus should drive the search.
Heck throw my name in the hat. I'll bet that I make informed decisions and could drive consensus and move the process forward.
Give me your thoughts and speak out for food safety...
Rudy Westervelt
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Are you drinking E.coli?
By the end of the year the FDA will require all manufacturers to test their source water on a weekly basis for bacteria. In particular E.coli must be evaluated.
Currently, the bottled water is tested after bottling to ensure that it does not contain E. coli and is safe to drink.
The new rule was in response to an EPA rule requiring municipal water districts to test their water to ensure it is safe to drink.
The rule will also expect bottlers to eliminate the bacteria, hold it from shipping and retest samples before shipping. All this must be retained in writing.
Since, the product should not contain harmful bacteria, the FDA using the adulterated product language to provide enforcement in this area.
Do you feel that manufacturers should be accountable to test all their ingredients when they have been furnished with a letter or certificate of guarantee?
What value are guarantees if you need to retest?
This may seem like a reasonable request. What is the cost? What is your liability? Will this better protect the public? Do current bottling procedures, such as ozonation or use of ultraviolet light, protect the product and the public?
Will public water supplies have increased scrutiny?
Let me know you thoughts.
Obviously, some unethical activity and accountability at the muncipal water source may affect your thoughts.
The government even reversed their findings in North Carolina.
A federal report said that water contaminated from a dry cleaner and industrial activity supplying Camp Lejeune was safe even though contaminated for more than 30 years. The government no longer stands by this report.
Veterans and families have filed claims in excess of $30billion.
Who do we trust? The rule makers, the government, the manufacturers?
Ask questions. Demand answers.
Be safe,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Currently, the bottled water is tested after bottling to ensure that it does not contain E. coli and is safe to drink.
The new rule was in response to an EPA rule requiring municipal water districts to test their water to ensure it is safe to drink.
The rule will also expect bottlers to eliminate the bacteria, hold it from shipping and retest samples before shipping. All this must be retained in writing.
Since, the product should not contain harmful bacteria, the FDA using the adulterated product language to provide enforcement in this area.
Do you feel that manufacturers should be accountable to test all their ingredients when they have been furnished with a letter or certificate of guarantee?
What value are guarantees if you need to retest?
This may seem like a reasonable request. What is the cost? What is your liability? Will this better protect the public? Do current bottling procedures, such as ozonation or use of ultraviolet light, protect the product and the public?
Will public water supplies have increased scrutiny?
Let me know you thoughts.
Obviously, some unethical activity and accountability at the muncipal water source may affect your thoughts.
The government even reversed their findings in North Carolina.
A federal report said that water contaminated from a dry cleaner and industrial activity supplying Camp Lejeune was safe even though contaminated for more than 30 years. The government no longer stands by this report.
Veterans and families have filed claims in excess of $30billion.
Who do we trust? The rule makers, the government, the manufacturers?
Ask questions. Demand answers.
Be safe,
Rudy
rudy@powerinlearning.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
