uTests Find Drug-Resistant Bacteria In 18% Of Conventionally Raised Ground Beefr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (jpmarth)

  Bacteria is everywhere, so it’s no surprise that you’ll find at least some ugly little pathogens in any meat products you buy. Most of these bugs won’t survive the cooking process, especially if you get that meat up to 160 degrees before serving. But since so many people like their burgers on the rarer side, it’s smart to know the potential risks.

  In addition to some folks’ love of bloody burgers, there are more concerns about ground beef than standard steaks and roasts because the grinding process takes bacteria that would have existed only on those cuts’ exteriors and mixes it in with the rest of the meat and fat.

  For a new story in the upcoming issue of Consumer Reports, our colleagues tested 300 samples (458 pounds) of raw ground beef — 181 samples of conventionally raised beef and 119 samples produced using more sustainable processes, like antibiotic-free, organic, and grass-fed — from supermarkets, big-box, and “natural” food stores in 26 metropolitan areas across the country.

  RELATED: How to cook a burger to a safe temperature that’s still tasty

  Each sample was tested for five common types of bacteria associated with beef: Clostridium perfringens; E. coli (including O157 and six other toxin-producing strains); Enterococcus; Salmonella; and Staphylococcus aureus.

  Both conventionally raised and more sustainably produced beef demonstrated the presence of these various bacteria, and all 300 samples contained bacteria that signified fecal contamination — from enterococcus and/or non-toxin-producing E. coli — which can cause blood or urinary tract infections.

  Almost 20 percent contained C. perfringens, a bacteria that causes almost 1 million cases of food poisoning each year. About 1-in-10 samples had a strain of S. aureus that can produce a toxin that can not only make you sick, but which can’t be destroyed in the cooking process.

  While only 1% of samples contained salmonella, when you consider the sheer amount of ground beef consumed nationwide on a yearly basis, you begin to realize why some 1.2 million a year fall ill from salmonella, resulting in 450 deaths.

  While there was little difference between conventional and sustainable beef when it came to the presence of enterococcus, salmonella, or C. perfringens, the other two pathogens in the tests were much more frequently found in conventionally raised beef. Tests found S. aureus twice as frequently in conventional beef samples, and E. coli showed up in only around 40% of sustainable beef, compared to around 60% for conventional.

  Many bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics, but there is a growing concern about drug-resistant superbugs. A number of samples in the CR tests turned up the presence of bacteria that is resistant to multiple drugs, and there was a noteworthy difference between conventional and sustainably sourced beef.

  RELATED: What terms like “Organic,” “Grass-Fed” and “No Antibiotics” Mean

  Among conventionally raised beef, nearly 1-in-15 (18%) of the samples contained at bacteria that are resistant to at least two antibiotics. That’s double the rate of drug resistant pathogens found in more sustainably produced beef. When you look at beef that is just grass-fed, that drops again to only 6%.

  “Better ways of producing beef from farm to fork have real impact on the health and safety of our food and the animals themselves,” said Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., executive director of the Center for Food Safety and Sustainability at Consumer Reports. “Farming animals without antibiotics is the first step toward a more sustainable system. Grass-fed animals and good welfare practices produce fewer public health risks.”

  Consumer Reports is calling on the FDA and the USDA to ban the daily use of antibiotics in healthy farm animals; ensure that meaningful labels are not undermined by labels like “natural” which have nothing to do with how animals are raised or what they ate; beef up (pun intended) USDA inspection practices, including having an inspector at every slaughter and processing plant; and ban the sale of beef containing disease-causing, antibiotic-resistant salmonella; and prohibit the presence of chicken waste in cattle feed.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

u5 Ground Beef Labels To Look Out For & What They Meanr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Kim Moynes)

  So you’re eating burgers at a cookout with some friends. One pal asks the host, “Hey, is this ground beef organic?” The host smugly answers, “Of course, I only buy grass-fed.” “Oh, so it’s antibiotic free?” queries another buddy, to which the host replies, “Didn’t you hear me? I said it’s grass-fed.” What the host apparently doesn’t know is that he may be very mistaken.

  As we showed before with chicken, there are dozens of different labels, marketing terms, and certifications that can be slapped on meat to differentiate it from the competition in the supermarket cooler, but not all of them are as meaningful as the wording might imply.

  Here’s a look at five different commonly used beef labels and what they actually mean.

  1. “No Antibiotics Administered”

  Producers of beef carrying this phrasing — or the slightly different “raised without antibiotics” — are required to provide the USDA with paperwork showing that no antibiotics were used during the animal’s life, however there is no independent verification process so the only source substantiating the “no antibiotics” claim is the company supplying it.

  Look for: If the package also says “USDA Processed Verified,” a “no antibiotics” claim is more trustworthy.

  Beware of: If the label says “no antibiotics used for growth promotion,” that doesn’t mean the animal was raised without antibiotics. It just means the drugs were provided for a different reason.

  RELATED: How to cook a burger to a safe temperature that’s still tasty

  2. “Grass-Fed”

  Because of its cultural association with sustainable farming, some consumers incorrectly assume that grass-fed beef is free of antibiotics. In fact, the two don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other.

  To label beef “grass-fed” or “100% grass-fed,” the USDA requires that the meat comes from animals that have never been given grain and have access to pasture during the grazing season.

  Much like the generic “no antibiotics” claim, grass-fed beef producers need only provide affidavits saying that their beef meets these standards, and no independent verification is required.

  Look for: The USDA Never Ever 3 indicates that the animal was not given any antibiotics, growth promotants or animal by-products at any point. Auditors from the USDA or an approved certification agency verify these labels.

  3. “American Grassfed Association”

  While the regular “grass-fed” label requires no independent verification and gives no indication of antibiotic use, this label demonstrates that the Grassfed Association has verified that: the animals are never fed grain; have continuous access to pasture or a grass-­based forage when the weather does not allow for pasture access; and that no antibiotics or growth hormones were used.

  However, the American Grassfed label does allow for animals that have grazed in pastures treated with pesticides and herbicides.

  4. “USDA Organic”

  Cows used to produce beef labeled “organic” can not be provided animal feed that includes pesticides, synthetic fertilizer, or genetically engineered ingredients. Additionally, organic beef cows are not given antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs.

  While these animals must be given access to pasture for most of their lives, organic cow farmers can still use feed­ lots and grain feeding during the last few months of the cows’ lives.

  5. “Grass-Fed Organic”

  If you’re out to find beef that was not fed grains, not treated with antibiotics or other drugs, not provided hormones, and ate only organically grown grass and forage, you’ll want this combination.

  Look for: There are a handful of labels that add a level of certainty to your purchase. Certifications like the “Animal Welfare Approved” seal, the “Certified Humane” seal,
  or the Global Animal Partnership (GAP) 5 or 5+ seal, mean that animal welfare standards also apply.

  For more on what’s in your beef and what you can do about it, you should read the latest investigation from our colleagues at Consumer Reports.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uWe Tried It: 4 Ways To Cook A Burger That’s Safe To Eat But Doesn’t Taste Like Leatherr

uFood Conglomerates That Take In Organic Brands Have Learned To Leave Them Aloner

4 4 4 9

• 

  (m01229)

  Big players in the packaged food industry have used a tactic of “if you can’t beat ’em, acquire ’em” when it comes to brands in the natural and organic foods sector. Yet what initially seemed like perfect corporate marriages of convenience may not be working out as well as anyone had originally planned.

  Large food players like General Mills, Hormel, and Campbell Soup seemed to assume that taking in small companies with reputations for sustainable behavior and healthy products would result in a halo effect for them, making the food conglomerate seem less evil.

  Instead, consumers who prefer natural, small, and local brands or who are deeply concerned about the issue of labeling food that contains genetically modified organisms or who don’t want to be customers of the brand’s new parent company simply drop or avoid the brands. “I would assume that when a smaller company is being bought by a larger company, they usually have to modify their products to meet the needs of a larger amount of people,” one shopper at a natural foods co-op told Reuters.

  The new corporate overlords, however, have found that isn’t really the case. They usually leave current leaders in place at their new acquisitions instead of absorbing them into the corporate fold. While mergers and acquisitions are usually about combining staff, resources, and supply chains, that doesn’t really work when you’re the company that sells both Cascadian Farm and Count Chocula.

  That means acquiring a natural brand isn’t really about extracting more profits from the new acquisition: Hormel can’t just slap Applegate Organics labels on products that come from its regular suppliers and processing plants without destroying the brand. The head marketer at Applegate told Reuters that he emphasizes to customers that the same farmers still supply the companies, and they are ultimately supporting those farmers and the cause of organic meat.

  What these acquisitions do is bring larger food companies, which consumers are starting to mistrust, into the natural food market by selling brands that are already established. Natural foods are the fastest-growing segment in the industry, and the big players want to be part of that as existing brands grow.

  Big Food’s natural brand acquisitions prosper best when left alone [Reuters]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uLive The Dream: Get Cinnabons And Fudgie The Whales Delivered To Your Doorr

4 4 4 9

• 

  Not the ice cream in question. (Morton Fox)

  The startup Postmates is carving out a unique place for itself in the economy: they exist to provide delivery for companies that aren’t interested in doing it themselves. While they perform same-day deliveries of merchandise from pretty much any store, their special niche this year has been signing up companies like Chipotle, Starbucks, and 7-Eleven, that you’ve secretly always wanted delivered, now they’ve added the parent company of Carvel, Cinnabon, and Moe’s to the mix.

  There probably aren’t many situations in which you’d want an ice cream cake delivered to your door, but it could happen. The company, Focus Brands, also owns Auntie Annie’s, McAlister’s Deli, and Schlotzsky’s, so it’s not all sugary treats.

  Postmates charges a delivery fee based on how busy they are and also a service fee based on the amount of your order. That means you could theoretically order a single cinnamon roll as long as you’re happy to pay at least five bucks on top of that.

  Unfortunately, the service won’t be available in every city where Focus Brands has restaurants, or even in every City where Postmates currently operates: you’ll be able to order in from these restaurants only in New York City, Dallas, Austin, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Portland for now.

  Hey couch potatoes! Carvel and Cinnabon will soon come to you [CNN]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uU.K. Orders Google To Forget 9 News Articles About The “Right To Be Forgotten”r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  Although Europeans in 28 countries have the option to ask Google to remove Internet search results about themselves under certain conditions, Google is pushing back against a new “right to be forgotten” request — one that seeks to remove nine news articles about the “right to be forgotten” itself from its internet search results.

  The United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office has ordered Google to scrub the articles in question from the internet, because they mention a man who previously made a successful “right to be forgotten” request.

  See, “the right to be forgotten” rule in the European Union says Google and other search engines have to remove links to outdated or inaccurate information about a person if they request they do so. That keeps defamatory statements, arrest records for minor crimes and other information a person might like to keep hidden in their present from coming back to haunt them whenever their name is searched on the Internet.

  Though Google complied and took down links related to a man’s conviction for a minor crime committed 10 years ago, ICO says news articles since then about Google doing so have mentioned the man’s name and details about that conviction.

  Google declined the request, ICO says, arguing that the articles concern one of its decisions to delist a search result and that they were an essential part of a recent news story relating to a matter of significant public importance.

  But ICO deputy commissioner David Smith wrote in a statement that the same “right to be forgotten” rules apply here, just as they did when Google agreed to take down the other web results for the man.

  “Google was right, in its original decision, to accept that search results relating to the complainant’s historic conviction were no longer relevant and were having a negative impact on privacy,” Smith says. “It is wrong of them to now refuse to remove newer links that reveal the same details and have the same negative impact.”

  Are those “right to be forgotten” stories about individual requests in the public interest? Yes, ICO says, but they shouldn’t show up on a Google search for that person’s name, as that completely defeats the purpose of having the other mentions removed in the first place.

  “Let’s be clear,” commissioner Smith wrote. “We understand that links being removed as a result of this court ruling is something that newspapers want to write about. And we understand that people need to be able to find these stories through search engines like Google. But that does not need them to be revealed when searching on the original complainant’s name.”

  In July, a complaint filed here in the U.S. with the Federal Trade Commission by advocacy group Consumer Watchdog argues not just that Google should be honoring “right to be forgotten” requests stateside, but that the company’s refusal to do so is a violation of federal law.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uNHTSA Denies Second Petition To Open Investigation Into Unintended Acceleration Of Toyota Vehiclesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  For the second time this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced it would not open a probe into millions of Toyota vehicles regarding possible unintended acceleration.

  The agency announced in documents [PDF] on Friday that it had denied a June petition [PDF] to investigate “low-speed surging” – also known as unintended acceleration – in several Toyota and Lexus vehicles after determining that crashes cited in the appeal were consistent with driver error.

  Back in June, a California man requested that the agency look into cars in which the vehicle begins “accelerating and the engine RPM increases even when the accelerator pedal is not depressed.”

  The petition was based on his interpretation of Event Data Recorder data from a crash his wife experienced in a 2009 Lexus ES350 vehicle and from two other crashes involving a 2010 Toyota Corolla and a 2009 Toyota Camry.

  With regard to his wife’s accident, the man alleged that the car’s electronic throttle control malfunctioned when it crashed into bushes, as she did not press the gas – an assertion supported by data recording from the vehicle.

  However, according to documents posted by NHTSA on Friday, the agency evaluated the petition and found that the three crashes were consistent with pedal misapplications by the driver mistaking the accelerator pedal for the brake when attempting to park.

  “The petitioner’s allegations regarding the three crashes are based upon several misconceptions about the manner in which the EDR samples and records pre-crash data in the ES350, Corolla and Camry vehicles,” NHTSA states. “In each of the three crashes, the vehicles accelerated as the drivers were attempting to park the vehicles. All three accelerations occurred as the vehicles were entering the intended parking spaces and in the times and positions where driver braking should be initiated to safely park the vehicles.”

  NHTSA determined that based on investigators’ analysis it is unlikely that the agency would issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect related to vehicle safety.

  This is the second time in three months that NHTSA has denied a petition related to an investigation into unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles: Back in May, the agency said it wouldn’t open a probe into low-speed surging in nearly 1.7 million model year 2006 to 2010 Toyota Corollas, citing similar findings.

  NHTSA investigators evaluated that petition by performing over 2,000 miles of test driving of the petitioner’s vehicle, reviewing a June 2014 accident report and vehicle data recorder, as well as reviewing nearly 160 similar consumer complaints submitted by the petitioner.

  Had the agency approved the two petitions, it would have marked the second and third for Toyota regarding unintended acceleration in the last six years.

  The previous investigation, which began in 2009 following the tragic death of an off-duty California Highway Patrolman and his family in a Lexus, ended in March 2014 when the automaker reached a deal with the Department of Justice to pay $1.2 billion to close a criminal probe over the issue.

  In the California case, the vehicle went off the road at around 120 mph, but not before someone in the car called 9-1-1 urgently seeking help because they could not get the car to slow down.

  This incident and other reports led to the recall of millions of Toyota vehicles, along with hundreds of civil lawsuits, some of which have been settled and some that continue to linger in the legal system.

  NHTSA tied the sudden acceleration problems to five deaths. However, the root cause of the problem has been a much-disputed topic. Some have claimed it was a problem with the vehicles’ electrical systems, while Toyota blamed it on unsecured floor mats that became trapped under the accelerator or brake pedals, making it difficult or impossible to control the speed of the cars.

  Back in March 2014, it was reported that federal prosecutors found evidence that Toyota made misleading statements about safety problems that were revealed by its own internal audits, and that the company made misleading statements to the government and to the public about those safety issues.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist