Russia and China Say Thanks, But No Thanks, to U.S. Poultry

August 24th, 2009 - Laura Klein

poultry_bigLeader of the free world? Not when it comes to food production…

Both Russia and China – not the most progressive countries when it comes to environmental and social service issues – have imposed bans on American poultry and pork.

As recently as March, 2009, Russian inspectors uncovered antibiotics and anti-parasitic drugs from three U.S.-based plants including Sanderson Farms in Hammond, La., a Peco foods facility in Canton, Miss., and a Tyson Foods plant in Cumming Ga.

Sadly, this isn’t new news. A rep from the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences  explained that the reason Russia imposed a ban on all poultry from the U.S. back in March, 2002, was because U.S. poultry producers use such large doses of these drugs that they accumulate in the tissues of the birds. “It is dangerous,” he said, “especially for children and older people.”

And just this month, China has banned imports of meat from two U.S. poultry plants and three U.S. pork plants. Although a specific reason wasn’t given, we can assume safety is at the core.

That’s why it’s so important for the Senate to reject HR 2749 – the Food Safety Enhancement Act – when they consider it upon their return from summer recess.  The bill simply doesn’t do enough to get huge agribusiness to provide safe food for the public at large.

Clearly, Russia and China would agree that we have a ways to go in the realm of food regulation.

HR 2749 also makes smaller producers subject to the same regulations as huge, industrial firms…a one-size-fits-all approach that simply doesn’t make sense.

What do you think about Russia and China banning poultry and pork from the U.S.? How does it make you feel? Let us know – we love hearing from you!

Read More:Russia and China Say Thanks, But No Thanks, to U.S. Poultry

Act Now to Protect Your Food!

March 21st, 2006 - Barbara Feiner

As someone who knows the difference between organic food and mainstream fare, you need to get involved in another issue that affects the safety of our food supply: the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, which I covered last week.

Grocers and food manufacturers are thrilled that their lobbyists have succeeded in convincing the House of Representatives to pass this bill, which now heads to the Senate for approval. The bill takes the teeth out of legislation that allows states to place warnings about lead, mercury, arsenic, pesticides and other hazards on food labels.

“This legislation is a win-win for consumers and the entire grocery industry,” says Thomas K. Zaucha, president and CEO of the National Grocers Association. “This bill will give the public a single set of consistent food safety regulations based on sound FDA science and will enhance the efficiencies in America’s food distribution system that allow the grocery industry to provide consumers with some of the safest and most affordable food in the world.”

In a word, no.

The Organic Consumers Association is concerned that lawmakers are selling out consumer health for campaign contributions. In the 2006 election cycle, big agribusiness has already given more than $14 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress.

“Despite the food industry’s rhetoric, this bill is a sweeping rollback of decades of state action to protect consumers,” says Susanna Montezemolo, a policy analyst for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “It would reduce food safety protections to the lowest common denominator and make states jump through expensive bureaucratic hoops to enact future food safety protections.”

Chris Waldrop, deputy director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, agrees.

“This bill guts existing laws designed to protect consumers and would enact the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws in decades,” he says. “State action on food safety has led to consumer protections not covered by federal laws, such as the elimination of arsenic in drinking water.”

The bill faces mounting opposition from 39 state attorneys general, the Association of Food and Drug Officials, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and numerous consumer and environmental groups.

“We are confident that opposition will only grow as this bill moves to the Senate,” Montezemolo says. “As more Americans learn about the impact of this radical bill, they will demand more—not fewer—protections, and urge the Senate to undo the damage the House did.”

You can also sign the Organic Consumers Association petition by clicking here.

Read More:Act Now to Protect Your Food!

© 2010 OrganicAuthority, LLC