“Can I eat the romaine lettuce in my refrigerator?” one recent caller asked me.

“No, we need to toss romaine lettuce for the time being, until the source and cause of the outbreak is determined,” I replied.

I cringe when I have to tell people not to eat their leafy green vegetables. Fortunately, we have some other choices that are similar nutritionally, such as spinach, so don’t give up on leafy greens entirely.

Safety is a critical factor we need to consider when we eat. Although throwing away food is a concern to me, sometimes, for safety reasons, we need to toss food to avoid illness. In the case of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli found in contaminated romaine lettuce, the consequences can be deadly.

So far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has linked a recent nationwide outbreak to lettuce grown in Arizona. At least 84 people have been sickened to date, including some illnesses reported in South Dakota. A common grower, supplier or distributor hasn’t been confirmed, according to the CDC, so the investigation continues.

How do lettuce and other vegetables become contaminated? Contamination can occur at multiple places from field to fork, and can involve water, animals or workers in the field and at multiple points on the way to the final consumer.

Because produce safety is a current topic, let’s review some food safety basics for choosing and preparing fresh produce of all kinds. First, select an amount you will use within a short time.

Later this summer in “pick your own” operations, be sure to bring clean containers or bags, or use bags provided, if that is an option. At the store, look for produce that is free from unusual odours or colours and signs of spoilage, such as mould. Be sure to handle produce gently to reduce bruising because bacteria can thrive in the bruised areas.

At the grocery store, keep fresh produce on top of other foods in a shopping cart and separate from fresh meat. Set it down gently on the counter at the checkout line. Remember that buying underripe produce isn’t always the best option. Peaches, cantaloupe and nectarines are examples of fruits that may soften during storage, but they won’t ripen.

When buying cut produce, be sure it’s refrigerated and keep it cold during transport. Keep it in a cooler with ice if travelling a distance.

At home, follow these tips:

• Wash your hands for at least 20 seconds with soap and water before handling produce and any other food.
• Wash all fruits and vegetables with cool running tap water right before eating. Don’t use dish soap or detergent because these products are not approved or labelled by the Food and Drug Administration for use on foods.
• Scrub melons with a brush and running water because bacteria can be transferred from the outside of the melon to the inside by a knife.
• Don’t cross-contaminate. Use clean utensils and cutting boards when peeling or cutting up produce. Wash cutting boards with soap and water, rinse and sanitize between uses. A solution of one teaspoon of chlorine bleach per quart of water is considered safe and effective to sanitize kitchen surfaces.
• Cut away bruised parts before eating. Remove the outer leaves from lettuce and cabbage.
• Keep fresh cut produce cold by placing serving containers on ice. Perishable food should spend no more than two hours in the “danger zone” (40 to 140 F).
• Refrigerate cut produce and use within a few days.

How about growing your own fresh produce? That’s a good plan, too. NDSU Extension recently wrapped up a series of 11 webinars, which are available to view online free of charge. See ‘Field to Fork’ on the NDSU website to learn about selecting seeds, growing organically or conventionally, the health benefits of gardening and much more.

Here’s a popular dip that’s perfect for spring gatherings. It can be serving with crackers or in a hollowed-out loaf of sourdough bread.

Spinach Dip

• 1 (10-oz.) package frozen, chopped spinach, thawed and well drained
• 1 (8-oz.) can water chestnuts, drained and chopped
• 1 (8-oz.) carton fat-free sour cream
• 1 (1.3-oz.) package dry vegetable soup mix
• 1 c. mayonnaise, reduced fat, made with canola or olive oil
• 3/4 c. sliced green onions, including tops

Thaw spinach overnight in refrigerator. Drain thawed spinach well. Combine spinach, sour cream, mayonnaise, water chestnuts, soup mix and onions. Refrigerate. If serving in a sourdough loaf, slice off the top third of one bread loaf and hollow out the inside. Cut removed bread and a second loaf into 1-1/2-inch cubes. Fill hollowed-out round bread loaf with spinach mixture. Place the cubed bread cut from the loaf around the outside for dipping.

Makes 16 servings of dip. Each serving (without bread) has 100 calories, 6 grams (g) fat, 2 g protein, 9 g carbohydrate and 320 milligrams sodium.

The post Staying safe with food appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That’s the bottom line after Canada and the United States have signed a food safety recognition agreement. It formally states the existing food safety systems of the two nations provide similar levels of protection to consumers.

Farm and food industry groups are calling it a useful first step, although it doesn’t yet cover new programs being implemented by the two countries.

The agreement, signed by senior officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), recognizes that the existing food safety systems of the two countries provide similar results.

“Canada and the U.S. have confidence in each other’s regulatory systems,” said Paul Mayers CFIA’s vice-president of policy and programs. “Co-operation between our countries is fundamental to providing and contributing to a safe food supply.”

The agreement doesn’t say whether new food safety programs in the two countries will be covered by the agreement. The U.S. has begun to introduce its Food Safety Modernization program while CFIA is consulting with the domestic agri-food sector on the regulations to accompany its Safe Food for Canadians program.

Albert Chambers, executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition, said the agreement provides for periodic reviews of the comparability of the Canadian and American food safety regimes. While no time frames are specified, “it can be expected that at some point there will be a need to compare the new food safety regimes with each other. The coalition is monitoring the development of the new Canadian regulations with the objective of reducing any potential challenges to Canada’s new comparability standing.”

CFIA spokeswoman Tammy Jarbeau said Canada and the FDA worked closely during the development of their new food safety programs to ensure that they continue to provide a similar level of protection to maintain food safety systems recognition.

“The arrangement will be reviewed as necessary as we move forward with regulatory modernization,” she added. “Both countries remain confident and committed to working together to ensure that recognition is maintained.”

The intention is for the two countries “to provide a similar although not necessarily identical system of protection, and that the food safety authorities provide similar oversight and monitoring.”

The agreement was negotiated under the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Co-operation Council (RCC). “This collaboration between Canada and the U.S. will result in better aligned food safety regulatory systems and allow us to better protect the health and safety of our citizens,” a statement from the group said.

The agreement should mean Canada and the U.S. accept that food exports from the other country come through an inspection pro­cess they have acknowledged as comparable to their own. Whether they do in practice remains to be seen, food industry insiders said.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture called the agreement “welcome and positive.”

“We are happy that such a comprehensive agreement has been made coming out of the RCC and we are looking forward to the reinvigorated relationship and focus on moving food safety, and many other issues, through the RCC over the next year,” the group said in a statement.

Chris Kyte, president of Food Processors of Canada, said his members want more details on the implications the agreement has for exports to the U.S.

“Will there will be fewer interruptions when shipping south?” Kyte said. “Will the USDA increase the frequency of inspection in American plants to Canadian levels? Will Canada and the U.S. harmonize MRLs? Will Canadian companies be allowed to use USFDA-approved ingredients, chemicals and pesticides? What exactly does this mean for Canadian business?”

The post Industry applauds Canada-U.S. food safety deal but seeks details appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Under new FDA regulations, partially hydrogenated oils, which have been shown to raise “bad” LDL cholesterol, will be considered food additives that cannot be used unless authorized by the FDA.

The regulations take effect in three years, giving companies time to either reformulate products without partially hydrogenated oils or petition the FDA to permit specific uses of them.

Following the compliance period, no partially hydrogenated oils can be added to human food unless they are otherwise approved by the FDA.

The new regulations will apply to such oils added to human foods, regardless of whether they are sold in a grocery store, restaurant, bakery or elsewhere, and whether the food is domestically produced or imported, the FDA said. They do not, however, apply to naturally-occurring trans fats found in some animal products such as meat and dairy.

The food industry has begun preparing a petition seeking approval for limited use of trans fats in certain products, such as decorative sprinkles, the industry’s trade group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said.

The group on Tuesday declined to give details about its petition and what other products were involved, but expressed satisfaction with the FDA’s overall action and three-year compliance period.

“(The) FDA has acted in a manner that both addresses FDA’s concerns and minimizes unnecessary disruptions to commerce,” it said in a statement.

Efforts to remove almost all remaining trans fats from the food supply will be worthwhile, Michael Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, said in a media conference call. “The public benefits far outstrip costs of compliance.”

Under current law, food additives cannot be used unless they have been approved in advance by the FDA or are generally recognized as safe. Such substances do not have to be approved before being used.

In 2013 the FDA made a preliminary determination that partially hydrogenated oils, the major dietary source of trans fat in processed foods, are no longer recognized as safe because they increase the risk of heart disease.

The oils are formed during food processing when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid. Reducing their use could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths, the agency said.

Currently, foods are allowed to be labeled as having “0” grams trans fat if they contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.

The food industry has reduced its use of trans fats by 86 per cent since 2003, according to the grocers trade group. The reduction was spurred in part by the FDA’s requirement, in 2006, that trans fat levels be disclosed on package labels and by New York City’s move to curtail trans fats from restaurant meals.

The industry has reformulated many products using palm, sunflower, safflower and other oils. But there are some products that have relatively low levels of trans fats and cannot easily be reformulated.

Food companies are hoping to persuade the FDA that such products meet the agency’s food additive safety standards. To do that, they must prove with reasonable certainty that the products cause no harm.

— Reporting for Reuters by Toni Clarke in Washington, D.C. and Ransdell Pierson in New York; additional reporting for Reuters by Anjali Athavaley in New York.

The post U.S. FDA to cut trans fats from foods appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Clint and Pam Cavers, whose old-world-style sausage earned top honours at the Great Manitoba Food Fight last year, have also been given the green light to go back into production.

“We’ve done a lot around here to try and work with MAFRD to make this come out well for everybody,” said a relieved Clinton Cavers last week. “We’re probably now within a month from being able to start producing prosciutto again.”

Upgrades to their facility, including new equipment and other revisions to comply with food safety regulations have been approved in writing by two inspectors from Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development who visited their meat shop in January, he said. That leaves them confident they won’t face a similar problem in the future.

“We got caught in this trap before, where everybody would say, ‘just do this, and then we’ll come and tell you if it’s OK,’” he said. “Now (they can’t) come and tell us we need to spend another $10,000 on something else they didn’t think of.”

The Cavers say they will have spent considerably more than that by the time the meat shop’s renovations are done, but the price tag isn’t the $100,000 they initially anticipated last fall when the raid on their farm thrust them into a media spotlight.

Their $10,000 prize for winning the Great Manitoba Food Fight, sponsored by the same provincial department that later stopped them from making prosciutto, was put towards hiring Food Development Centre consultants to teach them how to document Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), said Pam Cavers.

It’s going to be onerous to keep on top of it all, she said. “We’re working on it. They’re not easy. And I am a still little (company) and I need to make a living,” she said.

The Cavers’ predicament caused a simmering debate over how food regulations are implemented in Manitoba to boil over, as proponents of locally produced and processed food rose to their defence.

Although the province passed a new food safety act five years ago, MAFRD continues to hold public consultations on regulations. It could be 2015 before the act is proclaimed.

“Regulations still need to be consulted on publicly and then translated,” said MAFRD spokesman Dr. Glen Duizer.

“There’s a fair number of regulations involved. Once those are done we can move forward but it certainly takes time to get that done.”

University of Manitoba student Colin Anderson, spokesman for a loosely organized group of small processors, farmers and university students who coalesced in support of the Cavers, said small-scale producers are discouraged or pushed underground by the complexities of meeting modern food safety regulations.

His group circulated its criticisms widely through social media and letters to newspapers.

“A lot of the regulation, though not intended to do this, disadvantages smaller processors,” he said in an interview. “It has worked to contain innovation and limit innovation.”

But a spokesman for the Manitoba Food Processors Association (MFPA), whose 270 membership is mostly small companies of one to five employees, is reaching out to food processors who find themselves in similar situations.

Executive director Dave Shambrock said it is the association’s mandate to represent the needs and interests of food processors in Manitoba, and it is looking for ways to specifically help business navigate the regulatory landscape.

“It’s incredibly challenging for any processor, regardless of size, to be on top of this, but especially the medium- and small-size companies and you really don’t have any choice, if you want to be in the business of selling food,” said Shambrock.

“A lot of the information sites are just confusing to work through. And there are so many different food safety mechanisms and systems that are being developed,” he said.

From the Canadian Cattlemen website: Quality in: Quality out

The MFPA is applying through Growing Forward 2 for funding to develop a program that would make coaches or resource people available to those smaller-scale businesses that have neither the time, money or other resources to devote to regulatory matters, he said.

“We’re looking at having this network of consultants that we co-ordinate and make available to individuals as needed,” he said. “It would essentially assign coaches or resource people to smaller-scale businesses that need the help to investigate, interpret and take action on a regulatory framework appropriate to their size.”

The need for help is only bound to grow, Shambrock added. Presently, food makers operate at one of three levels, from using a basic food safety program to using Good Manufacturing Practices, to the higher level HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) program which can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000 to implement.

Shambrock says it is likely only a matter of time before HACCP is required for more processing activities and products.

“To my way of thinking it’s not going to be long before anyone selling food commercially, especially if it’s a higher-risk product, is going to have to have some kind of HACCP-based regime in place,” he said.

That’s what’s driving small businesses underground, according to David Neufeld, an organic greenhouse grower at Boissevain who also belongs to the coalition calling for clearer, simpler “scale-appropriate” food regulations.

Neufeld said as regulation becomes more expensive and complicated there will be less, not more small-scale processing, and that runs counter to all the widely documented business trends showing demand for closer-to-home produced foods consumers seek.

Prohibitive regulation is sending a message to small-scale processors that they’re “a threat to somebody,” he said.

“What we want is something that assists the on-farm cottage industries to thrive,” he said. “All we’re asking for is fair amount of time and resources put toward the smaller-scale food culture or the local food culture and the artisanal food culture in Manitoba,” he said.

“It isn’t good for the economy if people aren’t encouraged to develop their products and bring them to market,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Cavers say they just want to put what happened behind them and focus on making a good value-added meat product.

“It feels like we kind of wasted six months of time with wrangling back and forth,” said Clinton Cavers. “This is kind of a bureaucratic nightmare, without having extra staff hired just to navigate it for you.

“But I think it’s highlighted a problem that needs to be addressed.”

The post Pilot Mound prosciutto makers start over appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Artificial sweeteners are “non-nutritive sweeteners,” which means they provide few, if any, calories. We can find them in hundreds of food products.

In 2012, after examining numerous scientific studies, the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association released a joint statement with a “cautious recommendation” about the use of non-nutritive sweeteners. These sweeteners are viewed as potential aids in reducing overall dietary calories, which may promote weight management and reduced risk for some chronic diseases.

However, some researchers have shown that people make up for at least some of the calories they avoid in artificially sweetened foods by consuming additional calories from other sources. Compensating for the calories saved is less often the case when beverages are consumed.

The two organizations did not comment on the safety of the ingredients, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Some artificial sweeteners have been used for decades and are backed by many studies, while others are fairly recent entries into the food market.

If you sweeten the cups of coffee you buy at a coffee shop with packets of artificial sweetener, you might know these by the colour of the sweetener packet, such as blue, pink or yellow. Because these ingredients are many times sweeter than sugar, only a small amount is added to foods.

This is a summary of some of the most common non-nutritive sweeteners and is provided for educational, not endorsement, purposes:

• Aspartame, which is sold as “Equal” or “NutraSweet,” was approved for use in foods in 1981 and is about 200 times sweeter than sugar. It is made up of two amino acids (protein building blocks): aspartic acid and phenylalanine. When exposed to prolonged heating, the sweetness decreases. Therefore, it is commonly used in cold foods such as carbonated beverages, yogurt, gum, instant pudding and jellies. Food products containing this ingredient must carry a statement that indicates the food contains phenylalanine. People with phenylketonuria, a genetic condition, must avoid phenylalanine.
• Sccharin, marketed as “Sweet’N Low,” can be used in baked goods, jams, jellies, dairy products and other foods. After a study with lab animals showed increased risk of cancer in high doses, the FDA proposed banning it from food use in the late 1970s. More studies showed the product was safe, so the FDA approved it for use in foods in 2000.
• Stevia, also known as “Truvia” or “PureVia,” is a plant-derived sweetener. It is used in some beverages, energy bars and other foods. At least 250 times sweeter than sugar, Stevia was approved for use in foods in 2008.
• Sucralose, which is sold as “Splenda,” is made from sugar but is not digestible. About 600 times sweeter than sugar, it is used in beverages, juice, jams, chewing gum and many other products. It was approved in 1998.

Remember moderation in all things. If you like desserts sweetened with sugar but are watching your calories, have a smaller piece. If you want to cut back on calories from soft drinks but wish to avoid non-nutritive sweeteners, substitute water with a squirt of lemon.

The post Non-nutritive sweeteners appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“These proposed regulations are a sign of progress,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a critic of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“The new law should transform the FDA from an agency that tracks down outbreaks after the fact to an agency focused on preventing food contamination in the first place.”

Roughly one in six Americans suffers from a foodborne illness each year, and about 3,000 die. The usual culprits are salmonella, E. coli and listeria.

Food sickness has been linked to lettuce, cantaloupe, spinach, peppers and peanuts.

Under the new rules, makers of food to be sold in the U.S., whether produced at a foreign- or domestic-based facility, would have to develop a formal plan for preventing their products from causing foodborne illness. They would also need to have plans for correcting any problems that arise.

Companies will be required to document their plans and keep records to verify that they are preventing problems. Inspectors will be able to audit the program to enforce safety standards, which should “dramatically” improve the effectiveness of inspections, the FDA said.

A second rule proposes safety standard requirements for farms that produce and harvest fruits and vegetables. Farms would be required to meet national standards for the quality of water applied to their crops, as water is often a pathway for pathogens.

The post Washington demands better food safety practices appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Russia’s Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service said Jan. 23 that both countries were continuing to send chilled meat products to Russia that violated its import rules that require such proteins be free of residues from the feed additive ractopamine.

Such requirements are also in place in Belarus and Kazakhstan, that are partners with Russia in a three-country customs union.

Russia’s potential ban could jeopardize the more than $500 million a year in exports of U.S. beef and pork to Russia. It also comes amid mounting trade tensions between the two countries.

The Russian veterinary group “is especially concerned about the import of chilled meat products to Russia,” the service said in an English-language statement on its website.

Ractopamine is used as a feed additive by livestock producers in the United States and Canada and elsewhere. But countries such as China have banned its use amid concerns that traces of the drug could persist, despite scientific evidence stating that it is safe.

The additive’s effects on humans may include toxicity and other exposure risks, according to U.S. groups lobbying the Food and Drug Administration for domestic limits on the drug.

The United Nations has agreed on acceptable levels of the drug in livestock production.

Economic impact on Canada limited

A ban would likely have limited impact on Canada’s livestock industry, as Canada ships no chilled pork to Russia and only a small volume of chilled bovine meats.

In 2011, Canada’s fresh or chilled bovine meat shipments to Russia were worth just $216,000, compared with sales of nearly $15 million in frozen product, according to data provided by the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.

Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, asked about Russia’s position, highlighted the importance of basing international trade rules on science.

“We will continue to work with producers as they strive to maintain access into the important Russian market,” he said in an emailed statement to Reuters.

Tensions mount over use

Late last year, the United States asked Russia, the sixth-largest market for U.S. beef and pork, to suspend its anti-ractopamine requirement.

Federal officials also warned U.S. meat companies that Moscow might reject their pork shipments that contained ractopamine and stop buying pork from processing plants that produced pork with the drug.

This week, the Russian Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service said U.S. and Canadian regulators had failed to respond to requests for information on measures taken to prevent deliveries to Russia of meat containing ractopamine.

Canadian pork shippers have promised to comply with the Russian policy on ractopamine.

The Russian watchdog said imports from Canada were expected to be free of ractopamine by Feb. 28, but it had no such assurances from the United States.

Russia stepped up testing of U.S. and Canadian beef and pork imports in December as traces of ractopamine continued to appear in consignments of meat from those countries after a warning was issued early in 2012.

But the service had said imports continued despite the testing regime.

The post Russia may block U.S. and Canadian meat over ractopamine appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

President Barack Obama’s re-election could be a boost, as he is seen, in general terms, as being supportive of labelling. Still, efforts to force change at a federal level could face an uphill climb.

“The federal effort is a monumental task without a state victory somewhere,” said Michele Simon, a public health attorney from California.

New state labelling initiatives are planned for Washington state and Oregon. Beyond that, the action now shifts to Washington, D.C. and efforts to force change at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has primary regulatory oversight for food and food additives.

A citizen’s petition is pending with the agency demanding a re-examination of its policy against labelling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. More than one million people signed on, the most ever for a petition to the FDA, and backers say the effort has been aided by the publicity surrounding the California initiative.

“When we first filed our petition with the FDA over a year ago… it was only a handful of Washington insiders who fully understood what we were talking about,” said Gary Hirshberg, co-founder of Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company, and chairman of the “Just Label It” campaign. “Now average folks are well educated on this issue.”

Supporters of the federal labelling action include organic and natural food companies, environmental and consumer groups.

The petition, filed in October 2011, is the first step in a strategy that could lead to a federal lawsuit against the FDA, said Andrew Kimbrell, the lead attorney with the Center for Food Safety, who wrote the legal petition.

Kimbrell said passage of the California measure would have provided leverage for the federal effort. Its 53 per cent to 47 per cent defeat in progressive California was a setback, but the legal strategy with the FDA does not depend on state passage.

Rather, CFS hopes to prove that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, dating back to 1938, is being too narrowly interpreted by FDA and treats modern-day GMO technology in a way that does not comply with the intent of the law to protect consumers.

Genetically modified crops, which have had their DNA spliced with genetic material from other species, have been around for 16 years. Popular biotech crops can survive treatments of weedkiller and are toxic to insects that feed on the crops. And most processed foods sold in the United States contain some GMO corn, soybeans or other crops.

The CFS petition calls on the FDA to declare that molecular or genetic alterations are “material” changes relevant to consumers. The FDA’s current policy, set in 1992, holds that foods derived from genetically modified plants were substantially equivalent to those produced through conventional means.

The post U.S. GMO labelling efforts change course after California defeat appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In the article‚ Assessment of Soy Commodity Contamination in Wheat Flour, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in February 2011, researchers at Dr. Steve Taylor’s outstanding Food Allergy Research and Resource Program (FARRP) reported finding that 63 per cent of retail samples of wheat flour contained detectable soy at levels ranging from 12 to 1,770 parts per million soy protein isolate (four to 590 ppm soy).

The FARRP study included all-purpose, whole wheat, white wheat, bread and pastry flours. This raises a number of interesting questions. Should soy-allergic individuals avoid wheat-based products? FARRP says no, stating: “Probabilistic risk assessment shows that the risk of an allergic reaction from soy-contaminated wheat is very low; we do not advise soy-allergic consumers to avoid wheat-based products.”

Essentially, while analytical chemistry can find these trace amounts, they occur at levels that are well below the threshold at which they would ordinarily cause an allergic reaction.

Should the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) order a recall when its routine testing finds these trace amounts? No. If the science is clear that at these typical levels the food is not a health risk to consumers, then, in my opinion, the CFIA has no authority to order a product withdrawal (recall).

What about the much-vaunted public’s “right to know?”

Shouldn’t the presence of soy be declared on the label? In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expressly indicated in a guidance document that further processed foods such as milled wheat products do not need to be labelled if the residues arise from raw agricultural commodity crops.

As a practical matter, if the presence of soy contamination in wheat were to be labelled, most food products containing wheat would have to bear such labels due to the widespread nature of low-level contamination of wheat with soybeans. Labelling would confer no consumer benefit and could unnecessarily restrict the diets of soybean-allergic individuals. FARRP agrees: “These results suggest that no changes should be considered to labelling laws regarding soybean commodity contamination in wheat.”

Adventitious presence does not meet the definition of an ingredient in our regulations. Moreover, Health Canada has been clear that it would not favour a “contains” or “may contain” statement for these kinds of situations.

This is yet another case in which the advances in analytical chemistry continue to create major problems for food regulators around the world. Countries have zero tolerance standards that were set at a time when the detectable level was one ppm. But zero keeps getting smaller and smaller. We now have inexpensive tests that can detect parts per trillion (just as a reminder for those who cannot quite conceive of these little bits — one part per trillion is the equivalent of one second in 32,000 years. More often than the public realizes, regulators are confronted with finding such trace amounts of foreign material or of a microbial hazard where there is no standard set other than zero (no maximum residue limit, for example).

With no clear science to support setting a safe level and no expert opinion available to the food company to rebut the presumption of “unsafe,” regulators have recalled vast amounts of safe food. Think of StarLink, Belgium Dioxin and Sudan Red Dye.

Fortunately, in the case of the widespread adventitious contamination of wheat with soy, we have FARRP to thank for providing a workable, interim, scientific guidance that companies can use to persuade regulators not to create unnecessary havoc for consumers and the food industry when they “discover” soy in wheat flour.

The post Soy in the wheat flour? Soy what? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Adequate vitamin D helps build and maintain strong bones, plus it may help protect us from heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Many people are deficient in vitamin D, especially during our long winter months when standing outdoors for 15 minutes is not very practical.

Few foods naturally contain vitamin D. Some that do are salmon, tuna and eggs. Fortified foods, such as milk, some types of orange juice, yogurt and cereal, also provide vitamin D.

As we enjoy the warmth of the summer sun and stock up on vitamin D, we also need to take a few precautions. Try this true/false quiz:

1. True or false: You can get sunburned on a cloudy day.

2. True or false: Vehicle windows do not block the rays of the sun.

3. True or false: The majority of people diagnosed with melanoma are white men more than the age of 50.

All these statements are true. While everyone is at risk for skin cancer, some people are at a higher risk. If you use a tanning bed, you are at higher risk for skin cancer. Tanning beds are on the list of “known carcinogens,” according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Having a family history of skin cancer, lots of moles or freckles, fair skin, blue or green eyes and/or naturally blonde, red or light-brown hair also puts you at a higher risk. If you do not use sunscreen with a sun protection factor of at least 30, you are at a higher risk for skin cancer.

Just one severe sunburn doubles your risk of developing skin cancer. That is why covering up in the sun is so important. Hats with three-inch brims all the way around, long-sleeved shirts, sunglasses and sunscreen are a must.

Be sure to apply a broad-spectrum sunscreen 20 minutes before sun exposure and reapply every two hours. You also need to reapply your sunscreen after sweating, getting wet or towel drying.

Be sure to do regular self-skin exams and remember “ABCD.” Look for “asymmetrical” spots, “borders” that are irregular and a “colour” that is uneven or that has changed. Look for moles or suspicious spots with a “diameter” larger than the size of a pencil eraser.

Be sun savvy. Protect yourself from skin cancer. Visit http://www.cancer.org for more sun-safe tips.

The post Be sun savvy this summer appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.