Some government officials would like to see new warning labels on certain cuts of meat.
At issue is the process known as mechanical tenderization. The process involves using either needles or blades to help tenderize tough cuts of certain types of meat. It works by breaking down meat’s connective tissues and muscle fibers, and in some cases involves injecting a marinade into the meat itself.
Some safety-conscious citizens believe that this puts the meat at a greater risk of being infected with bacteria like E. coli. They think that the same needles that can tenderize a slab of beef can also push bacteria deeper into the product. Because of that, there’s a large number of people who want such slices of meat to have a label that describes the meat as “non-intact” and warns of a greater risk of infection and a need for a higher cooking temperature.
For their part, many persons involved in the meat industry believe that there’s simply not any proof to back such a claim that there’s an increase in bacterial contamination. They want more analysis before something rash is done.
This comes on the heels of Wednesday’s recall of 2,000 pounds of Town & Country beef.
This is an issue I’ll be following closely as a Riverside personal injury lawyer. I’ve long emphasized the importance of labels, as I think it’s vital that consumers know every potential safety risk associated with their food. However, I also understand as a Bakersfield personal injury attorney that careful research must be done before conclusions are jumped to.
A campaign to get genetically engineered foods labelled as such by the Food and Drug Administration looks to be gaining support.
The Just Label It Campaign has filed a petition with the FDA to make such labeling a rule, and they have released a statement claiming that more than one million people have pledged their support. The company also cited statistics which state that 93% of Americans are in favor of such a system.
Such labeling would align the United States with a number of other countries, including Japan, Russia, Australia, and partner countries of the European Union.
The Center for Food Safety tasked its attorneys with crafting the petition. The FDA now has six months to consider the content of that document and respond to the public. Proponents of the petition say that genetically engineered crops raises the price of land, preventing new businesses from forming and hindering limited resource farms. They say that such farmers are also at the mercy of a small group of seed providers that can set a high fixed price.
Right now, the only choice that consumers have to guarantee they’re not consuming genetically engineered products is to purchase food that has been certified organic.
As a personal injury lawyer in San Jose, I’ll be curious to see what happens should the FDA accept the terms of the petition. Would it mean that if a genetically engineered ingredient slips into a food product, that product might be recalled as a threat to safety? It’s hard to say at this juncture, but I’ll certainly be paying attention as a Bakersfield personal injury lawyer.
In an effort to make food labels easier to understand, the Institute of Medicine is lobbying for a new standard food labeling system, according to recent news reports.
The group hopes that the new labels, which would be similar to the Energy-Star ratings used for appliances, will make it easier to make well-informed choices about what we put into our bodies.
The proposed changes would have the traditional nutrition table on the back, with the front bearing the calorie county and a check mark or star markings. Foods would get checks for meeting the criteria of the Institute of Health. Current labeling can be confusing, as a package can claim to be full of some nutrients, while leaving out that they may be too high in others, such as saturated fat or sodium.
Industry advocates are still working on the program, explaining that food and nutrition can be very complicated when it comes to labels.
As a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer, I hope that consumer advocate groups, the food industry, and federal regulatory groups can come to an agreement that is best for the consumer. As a product liability lawyer, I believe that consumers have the right to information that affects their health and lives.
