Author - fjfnewswp232423423434

China is requiring pig slaughterhouses to conduct self-checks monitored by veterinarians to curb the spread of African swine fever (ASF), according to a statement from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Monday. The ministry believes that compulsory checks can help them find out the ASF situation in slaughterhouses, track their epidemic control and the whereabouts of their pigs and swine products, the statement said. A Xinhua article reported that the ministry said it is much easier to collect samples at slaughterhouses, which could help maximize the coverage of ASF inspection and facilitate epidemic assessment based on pig autopsy and clinical results. As of April 22, 98.49% of slaughterhouses having an annual capacity of more than 100,000 pigs had conducted self-checks, with the remaining ones suspending production. Slaughterhouses with an annual capacity below 100,000 pigs are required to start self-checks no later than July 1. “The ministry also emphasized the need to have official veterinarians supervise the quarantine, stressing that it was a significantly systematic arrangement to cut off the spread of animal epidemic diseases and to ensure the safety of animal products and public health security,” Xinhua reported. The ministry warned that slaughterhouses that do not follow the self-check requirement will not be granted veterinary inspection certificates.

The finding of an E. coli O103 contamination has forced K2D Foods’ Colorado Premium Foods to recall more than 113,000 lb. of ground beef and may be related to an outbreak that has sickened 156 people. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced the recall on April 23 after 113,424 lb. of ground beef processed in Carrolton, Ga., at Colorado Premium Foods was found to have E. coli. The raw ground beef was produced at the plant on March 26, March 29, April 2, April 5, April 10, and April 12, 2019. The beef was packaged in two 24 lb. vacuum-packed packages in cardboard boxes. Products bear the establishment number “EST. 51308” inside the USDA mark that were on cardboard boxes holding the packaged beef. The contaminated beef was shipped to distributors in Port Orange, Fla. and Norcross, Ga. for further distribution to restaurants. FSIS is concerned that restaurants may have products frozen and stored in freezers, along with having some still in refrigeration. The agency has called it a Class 1 Recall with a “high” health risk. FSIS urges restaurants that have the beef not to serve it and to either throw it away or return it to the place of purchase. E. coli can be potentially deadly causing dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2–8 days (3–4 days, on average) after exposure to the organism. FSIS recommends that any consumers who purchased the product to not consume it and either throw it away or return to the store where it was purchased. All raw beef should be cooked to a temperature of 160°F to reduce the risk of any food borne illness by bacteria according the FSIS. A meat thermometer will help in determining if the food has reached a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria. Further Investigation The recall of the ground beef from Colorado Premium Foods was found through an investigation by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), FSIS and Tennessee Department of Health. A similar investigation is being conducted by CDC, FSIS and other state organizations after 156 people were infected in 10 states by an outbreak of E. coli O103. Those organizations are conducting interviews with people who became ill. Thus far, of the 114 people surveyed who were sick, 81% ate ground beef. Those people consumed ground beef from several different grocery stores and restaurants. Further testing and investigations are being done to determine if more beef products need to be recalled.

Denver Processing LLC, a Denver, Colo., establishment, is recalling approximately 13,865 pounds of raw pork and beef products that were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and outside inspection hours, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced Friday. The raw pork and beef items were produced on April 9, 2019. The following varying catch weight plastic wrapped trays are subject to recall containing: “Pork Sirloin Boneless Chop” with “Sell By 04.18.19,” lot code 099, case code 60047, and all time stamps after 14:30; “Pork Boneless Loin Top Loin Roast” with “Sell By 04.18.19,” lot code 099, case code 60105, and all time stamps after 14:30; “Diced Pork Super Value Pack” with “Sell By 04.18.19,” lot code 099, case code 06385, and all time stamps after 14:30; “Pork Loin Boneless Chop” with “Sell By 04.18.19,” lot code 099, case code 60063, and all time stamps after 14:30; “Pork Loin Boneless Chops Family Pack” with “Sell By 04.18.19,” lot code 099, case code 19498, and all time stamps after 14:30; “U.S.D.A. Choice Beef Chuck Pot Roast Boneless” with sell by date “0418,” lot code 099, case code 69481, and all time stamps after 14:30; and “U.S.D.A. Choice Beef Top Round London Broil” with sell by date “0418,” lot code 099, case code 69479, and all time stamps after 14:30. The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 6250” within the USDA mark of inspection on the case label and directly outside of the USDA mark of inspection on the product label. These items were shipped to retail locations in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Although there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products, anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Don’t forget to check your refrigerators or freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

Consumers want “natural” meat—and the biggest meat companies want to sell it to them. American shoppers are reaching for healthier, more environmentally and animal-friendly meat products, with 39 percent saying “all-natural” is the most important claim when purchasing red meat, according to a recent survey by Mintel. But there’s one problem: The U.S. Department of Agriculture says that when it comes to meat and poultry, the term “natural” means only that the product has no artificial ingredients and has been minimally processed. It doesn’t mean anything when it comes to antibiotics, hormones or preservatives. Companies such as Tyson Foods Inc., Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. and Hormel Foods Corp. have been snapping up smaller, outwardly progressive competitors in the burgeoning organic food space, seeking to capitalize on changing consumer tastes. At the same time, however, some of the major meat companies have been offering their own products as “natural,” replete with labels featuring blue skies and green fields. On April 8, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia—a jurisdiction with stringent consumer protection laws—dismissed a lawsuit by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) alleging Hormel was misleading consumers. The court held that as long as manufacturer labels are approved by the USDA, the advertising can use the “natural” claims. “[I]f a producer can accurately use a term in a label,” the court wrote, “the producer should be able to use the same term in its advertising.” Hormel said in its most recent quarterly filing that its “Natural Choice” line of meats “showed excellent growth.” But in a 600-plus-page court filing in January, in which Hormel responded to the ALDF lawsuit, the company disclosed how it makes some of its Natural Choice products, as well as its perception of what consumers think they’re buying. In statements disclosed in the filing, a company executive said the same pigs it uses to make its famous Spam brand meat product are also used in Natural Choice pork products. Those pigs are often given antibiotics and are rarely allowed outdoors. “It’s a massive attempt to manipulate and dupe the consumer to purchase something they have no intention to purchase,” said David Muraskin, a food project attorney at Public Justice and lead lawyer for ALDF. The group said it plans to appeal the April 8 ruling. “Our position has always been that Hormel Natural Choice products are produced, labeled, and marketed in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations,” Hormel said in a statement. “The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has specifically reviewed and approved the labels for Hormel Natural Choice branded products, including scrutinizing and approving the ‘Natural’ and ‘Preservative’-related language.” Internally, Hormel employees questioned whether they were meeting consumer expectations, specifically around antibiotics, according to the court filing. The company’s director of marketing said in an email quoted in the document that “many consumer[s] assume Natural=RWOA [Raised Without Antibiotics].” Hormel stated in the filing that she was “simply making an observation.” Consumer comments cited in the court filing often focused on the “no preservatives” claims, with one stating, for example, “We love your [Natural Choice] meats, my husband is allergic to nitrates, so thankful for your products …” Hormel stated that, at most, “the commenter purchased Natural Choice products because of the taste and because the commenter’s husband had no allergic reaction.” Some of the natural ingredients used as preservatives in Natural Choice products are high in nitrates. “There’s a difference between what’s legal and what’s ethical,” Nikolas Contis, a senior partner at brand consultant PS212, said of the Natural Choice marketing. “I think it’s unethical. They know the words are misleading.” Hormel on Wednesday rejected Contis’s assertion, saying it disagrees with “any implication that the advertising or labeling for the Hormel Natural Choice brand is misleading.” Many animals raised for meat in the U.S. spend their lives in conventional indoor agricultural systems, receiving antibiotics and sometimes growth promoters. While this isn’t what most consumers likely envision as “natural,” it’s a system that allows them to eat as much beef, pork, turkey and chicken as they want—no matter where they live or the time of year. According to the court filing, Hormel executives said that these practices are deployed at the independent farms raising their animals, and that there is no difference between those raised for Spam and those destined for Natural Choice. (Hormel’s Applegate brand, a small organic label it purchased in 2015, was not at issue in the lawsuit.) There is “no separate manner in which the pigs raised for Hormel Natural Choice products are versus any other of Hormel’s products, so Spam or any lunchmeat or bacon product,” Corwyn Bollum, Hormel’s director of pork procurement, said in a deposition cited in the court filing. That means only a “fairly small percent” of the pigs slaughtered for Natural Choice had any outdoor access, he said. Some pigs used in Natural Choice products received antibiotics and/or the growth promoter, ractopamine, according to other statements cited in the filing. And it’s not just the pigs: “Hormel Foods acknowledges that some cattle that [sic] used in Natural Choice beef products receive hormones,” the company wrote in the filing. It also stated that turkeys used in Natural Choice products may receive antibiotics. Antibiotics are administered to livestock to prevent disease, though the practice has been linked to a growing public-health crisis of antibiotic resistance in humans. Producers are supposed to allow enough time between the administration of antibiotics and the slaughter of the animal, such that the drugs have been flushed from its system, said Colin Johnson, a swine specialist with the Iowa Pork Industry Center in Ames, Iowa. He added, though, that trace amounts of some antibiotics remain legal. Then there’s ractopamine, a drug that changes animal metabolism to make the meat leaner and heavier. The drug is banned in China, Russia and the European Union, and tests of its safety for humans are limited. In the U.S. and dozens of other countries, however, the drug is legal to use. American pork producers reduced their usage after China’s ban in 2011, since they look to that market for significant exports. “I’d assume ‘natural’ wouldn’t have ractopamine,” Johnson said, though he added that the substance isn’t harmful to humans. “Antibiotic residues are very uncommon,” Hormel said in a statement. “If our testing indicates a positive, that raw material is not used in our food production and does not enter the food chain.” The advertising claims about preservatives, like “no preservatives or artificial ingredients” and “no nitrates or nitrites added,” are also misleading, ALDF alleged in its original complaint in 2016. On its website, after its “no preservatives” claim, Hormel adds the statement “except for those naturally occurring in cultured celery and cherry powder.” Celery juice powder is naturally high in nitrates. Additionally, many Natural Choice items also contain lactic acid starter, a bacterial culture. The Center for Science in the Public Interest said bacterial cultures convert the nitrates into sodium nitrite, a meat preservative it warns should be avoided because studies link its consumption by children and pregnant women to cancer. (CSPI for this reason specifically advises consumers to be wary of “natural” hot dogs and cured meats boasting of “no added nitrite.”) “We continue to stand behind Hormel Natural Choice products,” Hormel said in its statement. “Hormel Natural Choice products are minimally processed and contain no artificial ingredients or chemical preservatives, and that’s clearly stated on the package.”

From fiber and oil to clothing and makeup, hemp products are hot. And now some are exploring whether hemp could be a useful ingredient in animal feed. So what’s the Secretary of Agriculture’s take? “Hemp in animal feed? I’m not aware of any uses of hemp in animal feed. I know there are other uses,” Sonny Perdue says with a chuckle. “But we're trying to determine really what those individual uses are.” While hemp currently isn’t an approved ingredient in animal feed, the Association of Association Feed Control Officials has invited the hemp industry to present information about hemp’s value in feed for scientific review. A high sign agriculture is moving on scientific research is Colorado Senate Bill 17-109, signed by Governor Hickenlooper, that establishes a study group to look at hemp’s possibilities for commercial feed. Perdue, who worked as a veterinarian and small businessman before entering politics, says he has seen signs that hemp is a hot topic in ag this year—in part because of its new crop status outlined in the 2018 farm bill, which labels hemp with less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as a commercial crop. “You know, there's a good bit of hysteria about hemp, and our marketing regulatory program, Under Secretary (Greg) Ibach, fields more questions about hemp than probably anything in the farm bill,” Perdue says. He concedes that feed could be a potential use. “Feed, it possibly could be involved in there. That has not been one of the primary uses we’ve heard of. We hear a lot of industrial uses for it, but I think it remains to be seen if part of the product could be used in animal agriculture. Happy cows,” he jokes.

Trade issues with China can’t be resolved fast enough, said Dave Herring, North Carolina pork producer and president of the National Pork Producers Council, on AgriTalk with Chip Flory on April 4. “The indications we're seeing right now looks like we're getting closer,” Herring said. “If we could get the trade dispute settled with China, it would really open up some doors and create tremendous opportunities. And we need those opportunities.” U.S. pork is at the “tip of the spear” when it comes to China and Mexico trade issues, Flory said. “You can look at it two ways,” Herring said. “It’s fortunate. It’s unfortunate. When you're really good and efficient at what you do, like U.S. pork and grain farmers, you have a large demand for your product. But when you get in these trade disputes, unfortunately, you're at the tip of the spear and you get retaliated against first.” Flory asked Herring what he would say if he had a chance to sit down for coffee with the president. “Last year we exported a little over a billion and a half dollars worth of pork to Mexico last year, almost 20% percent of total exports, and probably 40% of the hams from the U.S., Canada, Mexico,” Herring said. “We’ve got to keep those doors open and keep the trade flowing.” He noted that U.S. producers ship a lot of hams to Mexico, and China buys a large amount of U.S. pork offal product, which adds about $8 in value to every hog produced in the U.S. In addition, it’s on products China desires and the U.S. does not, so it’s a win for both parties. With a little momentum in the markets these days, expansion talk is ramping up, Flory said. Is now the right time to expand? “I think the future is bright,” Herring said. “There's one thing about it, when we have an opportunity in agriculture – especially livestock agriculture – to grow, our farm families innovate, they get more efficient, and it just makes it a better situation in rural America.” Herring will be in Washington, D.C., this week at the spring Legislative Action Conference, along with producers from all over the country, meeting with congressmen and legislators. “We cannot get an agreement with Japan fast enough,” Herring said. “We need to get the trade disputes with China and Mexico finished. We need to get USMCA ratified – I would love to see that happen. I think our future in the livestock industry, especially pork, is going to look up.”