Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), an avid vegan and promoter of organic foods, has introduced the Safe School Meals Act.  Provisions of this legislation would include: -

• Banning PFAS, phthalates and bisphenols in food packaging for school meals.
• Directing the FDA to establish safe limits for heavy metals in school meals based on risk analysis.
• Banning of ingredients with glyphosate, paraquat, organophosphates and designated pesticide residues.
• Expanding the National Organic Cost Shares Certification program to cover up to $3,000 in expenses.

It is imprudent to establish zero tolerance residue standards for inorganic and organic compounds in foods since current and future technology is capable of detecting contamination far below biological effect levels even with bioaccumulation.  This would specifically apply to glyphosate, a herbicide used on over 90 percent of U.S. soybeans and corn.  Establishing acceptable levels for paraquat and organophosphates is justified based on their known neurologic effects.  Likewise, safe limits on heavy metals including lead, arsenic and cadmium are required. This said these are ubiquitous elements detectable in all soil and plants in therefore in foods. 

It is interesting to note that the proposed Bill exempts organic farms that should by definition meet the requirement for freedom from glyphosate and pesticides.  In this respect the exemption is self-serving. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Certified organic ingredients should be subjected to the same intensity of assay as conventional products intended for food.  The National Organic Program is based on a review of a paper trail and lacks the assurance of structured laboratory assay.   There have been sufficient cases of fraudulent use of the organic seal, especially for imported ingredients, to justify surveillance for proscribed contaminants. 

The provision in the Bill that provides remuneration for organic cost share certification has little to do with school feeding but is obviously an incentive favoring organic production. Both near and dear to Senator Booker’s heart and his digestive tract.

In supporting the proposed Bill, Senator Booker stated, “Kids in America consume far too many harmful substances in their food.”  This sentiment that forms the basis of the proposed law should, however, be quantified and verified.  Senator Booker continued, “School meals should be a child’s safest source of nourishment, not another source of toxic exposure”.  He concluded “The Safe School Meals Act would protect our children by getting dangerous chemical food additives, heavy metals and pesticide and chemical residues out of school meals.” Then comes the commercial, “While creating a significant new market opportunity for organic and regenerative farmers.”

It is fairly obvious that the “Safe School Meals Act” is really a pro-organic bill in disguise.  Nobody in their right mind would countenance inclusion of known toxic compounds in school feeding.  What is important is to establish what may be toxic and what might be inconsequential.  Some aspects of the Safe School Meals Act are potentially protective but the disruption and added cost of compliance should be taken into account.  As presented, the Bill is designed to promote organic production and an attempt to demonize conventional food.

In a September 26^th announcement, the USDA will make available $58 million in marketing assistance to organic dairy producers through the Organic Dairy Marketing Assistance Program.  According to Zach Ducheneaux, Administrator of the Farm Service Agency “The program is designed to help organic dairies respond to challenges outside their control.”  He added, “Through this proactive engagement, we identified the need for and are pleased to offer increased payment rates and an adjusted production level for eligible cost-share assistance.”  The Marketing Assistance Program will incorporate a 57 percent increase in the payment rate to $1.68 per hundredweight and the limit level will be increased from five million pounds of milk to nine million pounds, extending assistance to more farmers.

While it is evident that organic dairy farmers and especially small family-operated units are impacted by consumer resistance to pay a high premium for the organic seal it is questioned whether public funds should be allocated to support a segment of the industry that is obviously unprofitable and will remain so.  There is no support program for either organic eggs or poultry with these segments of the agricultural industry subject to the vagaries of supply and demand and consumers’ willingness to pay. 

Why does the USDA support nonviable enterprises and attempt to restructure food production?  It is understood that a number of organic dairy operations have converted to conventional milk given the high cost of non-GM feed, and other onerous regulations that have little or no impact on the quality or nutrient composition of their products.

The final decision of the Federal District Court in Oregon on the filing by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to block the transaction will in large measure determine whether the 2022 proposal to merge Kroger and Albertson’s becomes a reality.

Rodney McMullen is optimistic that the transaction will proceed, stating at an analyst call that the Company had made a strong case for the deal and will continue to fight for its completion.  He stated, “We remain committed to closing the merger because it will provide meaningful and measurable benefits for customers, associates and communities across the country, and we look forward to bringing these commitments to life.”  He added, “Regardless of the outcome of the trial, Kroger is operating from a position of strength, and we are optimistic about our future.”

Kroger considers that the merger with Albertsons will be necessary to achieve a scale of operation to compete with Walmart, Amazon, Costco and Aldi.

The original proposal would have created a behemoth with 4,990 stores, 66 DCs, close to 4,000 pharmacies and 2,000 fuel centers in 48 states.  Divestiture of 579 stores in 18 states with 8 distribution centers to C&S Wholesalers would still create an enterprise that will dominate many markets with diverse banners and store brands.

The proposed transaction is opposed by the FTC and the Attorneys General of nine states based on the perceived effect on competition and the inherent power to suppress union representation.

Although the interests of workers and customers are frequently advanced in arguments for and against the merger, the immense buying power created will be detrimental to suppliers. This is especially the case in western states where the combination of Albertsons and Kroger would dominate the market.  Recent fluctuation in the price of eggs is attributed in part to the ‘bending’ of the prevailing benchmark price discovery system by buyers employed the large chains. By withholding orders, for even a limited period, results in stock builds depressing price. A precipitous drop in wholesale price over the past two weeks cannot be ascribed to either a substantial increase in supply or a sharp decline in demand although both these factors could be mutually contributory. It is unlikely that the price of eggs can be as elastic as has been demonstrated due to either supply or demand changes over a period of two to three weeks. EGG-NEWS has consistently advocated for a Chicago Mercantile Exchange quotation for Midwest large as a more equitable basis for pricing.

Even if the Oregon Federal District Court grants a preliminary injunction against the merger, Kroger intends to continue litigation having spent close to $1 billion in legal fees and planning for the transaction.   If the company is foiled in its attempts to complete the deal, shareholder opposition may pressure McMullen to back down as legal costs will mount and as the pursuit of a successful outcome becomes a distraction from efficient and profitable operation of the enterprise.

Following the ongoing Listeria outbreak attributed to Boar’s Head Foods and with the recent history of the infant formula debacle, lead-tainted cinnamon, contaminated leafy greens, eyedrops and blood thinners containing pathogens and arsenic in juices, support is growing for a separate federal food safety administration that would assume the responsibilities currently assigned to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Federal Food Administration Act introduced into Congress by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) would establish the proposed Agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Apart from the obvious failure to detect and respond appropriately to recent foodborne disease outbreaks, the FDA has been grossly negligent in inspecting both pharmaceutical and food producing plants under their jurisdiction.   The Agency attributes this negligence and dereliction of responsibility to the restrictions imposed during the COVID years.  This is errant nonsense.  Since both domestic and foreign plants operated with company personnel, FDA inspectors could have undertaken in-person audits, especially after vaccination became available.  The FDA has a backlog of inspections with only about 2,500 scheduled for 2024 compared to 4,300 annually pre-COVID.

Despite the belated restructuring of FDA and the appointment of a Deputy Director responsible for Food and Nutrition, it is questioned whether the changes made will rise even to the level of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 Even if the Federal Food Administration Act is passed, it does not address the divided responsibility between the USDA-FSIS responsible for red meat and poultry.  The Boar’s Head case has disclosed failure to enforce acceptable standards of plant operation over an extended period by this Agency.

Unless the proposed Food Safety Agency has responsibilities for all food, there will be jurisdictional and structural overlap resulting in conflicts such as the responsibility for pizza toppings and oversight over shell eggs as compared to egg products.  The compromise over cell-cultured meat with inappropriate regulation of this aspect of food production by the FDA and not the USDA is an example of organizational dysfunction. Delays in approval of gene deletion for food-producing animals illustrates the profound restrictions imposed by division of responsibility and disinclination to surrender “turf” to the detriment of stakeholders.

From a practical aspect, it would be expedient to establish a Federal Food Safety Administration to assume the food-related responsibilities of the FDA. Thereafter regulation and inspection of red meat and poultry could be transferred to the Agency to facilitate a smooth transition to an established entity with competent staffing and a proven record of accomplishment.

With an apparent 40 million cases of foodborne illness annually in the U.S. requiring over 100,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 fatalities, the incompetence of the FDA with respect to food safety cannot be ignored and passage of the Federal Food Administration Act is strongly supported.

In an address at the Farm Progress Show on August 28^th, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics will consider protocols to evaluate a vaccine suitable for cattle against H5N1 strain B3-13.  This change in policy relating to avian influenza vaccine represents a radical departure from the ‘No vaccines ever-we have this in hand-- almost eradicated” policy in response to the trade implications of immunizing poultry.  According to the USDA notice, field trials can be conducted on inactivated vaccines outside of containment facilities and without disposal of milk.  Previously the Center for Veterinary Biologics mandated that all research and evaluation should be conducted in biological containment facilities.

There is an obvious disparity between the approach by the USDA toward vaccination of poultry  in contrast to dairy cattle.  Close to 100 million commercial poultry comprising mainly egg-laying hens, turkeys and to a lesser extent broilers, have been depopulated at considerable expense to the Federal government, producers and consumers. 

The USDA continues to promote biosecurity as a protective measure in the knowledge that even comprehensive structural and diligent operational biosecurity are not absolutely effective. Slogans such as “Defend the Flock” and posters issued by the USDA are more for internal departmental self-assurance rather than to provide meaningful protection as adjudged by outcomes.  While strict biosecurity is regarded as partially protective, the incidence rate of outbreaks and their severity during the periods of migration of waterfowl have confirmed the inadequacy of this modality. Vaccination of egg-producing flocks and turkeys in high-risk regions of the U.S. is overdue by about two years and 100 million birds. Vaccination against HPAI, accompanied by surveillance, is accepted by the World Organization for Animal Health as an adjunct to biosecurity. France is applying vaccine for the second consecutive year. Successful field evaluation has concluded in the Netherlands and extensive vaccination programs have been in effect in Mexico and China for over a decade. This suggests that the U.S. is either behind the curve on recognition of the protective benefits or is influenced in its policy by misplaced concerns over export of broiler leg quarters.

The new-found recognition that vaccination can be part of a preventive program for dairy herds and the relaxations of restrictions for field evaluation of inactivated vaccines demonstrates a responsiveness to the emergence of an infection in a novel species and with an additional concern over zoonotic transmission. The decision to deploy vaccination for egg production flocks, turkey breeders and commercial grow-out units in high-risk areas separated from the broiler industry should have been implemented in 2022.  Creation of immune flocks would have reduced the probability of infection and saved a great deal of time and anguish, not to mention taxpayer funds.

The need to create immune populations among poultry in areas of high population density is evidenced by the mutations that have occurred in the avian H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b to allow adaptation to dairy herds. The emergence of avian influenza in wild terrestrial and marine mammals should have been an indicator of the need to protect herds and flocks as a component of the One Health approach to prevention of infections with pandemic potential.

In the immediate term, the imposition of mandatory milk testing by Colorado veterinary regulators following the emergence of bovine influenza-H5N1 in dairy herds will allow quarantine for the duration of shedding of virus. In addition Michigan and Colorado have facilitated cooperation among Federal and state agricultural and public health and wildlife agencies to implement a comprehensive surveillance program for livestock and workers. Their efforts are worthy of adoption by the other 12 affected states including California. Containment of infection is an immediate priority since vaccination is months into the future.  Anything less than an intensive and immediate program of detection with quarantine of affected herds will result in an endemic status in the U.S. dairy industry. Self-serving and inadequate programs as required for interstate movement by the USDA-APHIS or outright institutional denial as in some states, represent a slow-motion train wreck. Vaccination of dairy herds in the future may or may not be effective but appropriate action is required now.

To apply an old English adage, What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If H5N1 vaccine can be evaluated and then deployed for dairy herds, then susceptible poultry operations in high-risk areas should be afforded the same consideration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has awarded $316 million to twelve regional Food Business Centers since May 2023.  Most recently, $3.7 million was granted to the Heartland Center. This entity involves participation by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and New Growth, operating under the Rural Missouri Community Development Organization.  The objective of the USDA grant is to expand local and regional food systems in Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and northwest Arkansas.

Money is distributed in amounts of $5,000 to $50,000 to eligible applicants who include: -

• Small farms and businesses contributing to local and regional food supply.
• Entrepreneurs who are immigrants, people of color, veterans and the otherwise disadvantaged.
• Food and farm entrepreneurs initiating new enterprises.

Katie Nixon, Co-Director of the Heartland Center, noted, “The Business Builder grant opportunity will inject capital for building and strengthening local food systems.”

In all USDA announcements, grants and funding are referred to as “investments”.  This presumes either a future financial return or alternatively quantifiable social benefits. The USDA under the present Administration has expended taxpayer funds for numerous projects intended to restructure the food supply in the U.S. and to benefit the “underserved.” It is now time for the Department to justify their expenditures on projects funded three years ago and to provide solid financial data on return as a result of grants and loans. If not, the Department should cease using the misleading euphemism “investment” and refer to the disbursements as giveaways to selected constituencies.

Food price inflation that has in recent months steadily declined is now a rallying cry by politicians leading up to the November Election.  Data released on August 14^th by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a 2.9 percent annual increase in inflation for July 2024.  Food at home was up 1.1 percent year-over-year although the category of “meat, fish and poultry” was collectively up 3.0 percent.  In contrast, food away from home was up 2.8 percent from July 2023 with QSRs leading at 4.3 percent compared to full-service restaurants at 3.8 percent.

It appears that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have collaborated in making a case for the alleged overpricing of food. The activist FTC Chair, Ms. Lina Khan, maintains that high-food prices at supermarkets are (or were) a source of consumer complaints. In contrast a review of quarterly reports posted by the major food retailers demonstrates net margins ranging from 1 to 3 percent, obviously inconsistent with upward manipulation of prices.

Unfortunately, fluctuation in egg prices with a recent substantial rise has focused unwanted scrutiny on our industry.  Politicians and federal regulators seem to forget the weeks of  $0.70 to $1.00 wholesale prices with producers underwater for months on end.

The ad hoc FTC and DOJ group are considering legislation relating to alleged price-gouging although it would appear from federal economic data that the inflation horse has long since bolted from the stable.

Chairperson Khan stated, “We have to use the full extent of our reviews to stop any corporate law-breaking that inflates costs for American families.”  She added, “This is essential work that will help ensure that Americans can be free from economic coercion and indignities in the marketplace.”

Currently, the FTC opposes the merger of the Kroger Company and Albertsons Corporation on the grounds that it would diminish competition and ultimately raise prices. This is despite the assertion by Kroger that they intend reducing prices albeit over the short term. Recent history has shown that mergers, especially when competition is reduced through oligopoly can result in higher prices and inconvenience especially in rural areas and in food deserts.

The decision by Kroger and other food retailers to install electronic shelf-pricing as a convenience factor suggests an intent to introduce surge pricing. Even if this is not the motivator the initiative represents extremely bad optics and timing.  With existing electronic scanning at checkout using barcoding, surge pricing is probably a de facto tactic during peak shopping periods, especially over weekends.

It is now apparent that bovine influenza H5N1, identified in close to 200 dairy herds in 13 states represents an ongoing danger to the poultry industry and potentially, human health.  In June and July outbreaks in three egg-production complexes in Michigan and Colorado required depopulation of more than seven million hens apparently infected indirectly by movement of personnel from infected dairy herds.

Current standards of structural and operational biosecurity for dairy operations, even in closed herds, is acknowledged to be inferior to egg production complexes. This creates the potential for extension of infection and ongoing spillover.  The recognition that the bovine adapted B3.13 strain of H5N1 is zoonotic, albeit producing mild clinical symptoms, is an added complication.  The understated risk of a possible mutation of the virus to become more infectious to humans and also to exhibit contagion are important justifications to intensify field and laboratory studies on the epidemiology of bovine influenza H5N1.  With the exception of Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota, state agricultural agencies appear unwilling to implement the necessary surveillance to establish the extent of infection and to define the factors that contribute to exposure of workers.

Commentators have suggested that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the obvious regulatory authority to become involved in worker safety.  The ability of OSHA to play an active role in investigation and exposure of workers is limited by a self-serving 1976 rider to an appropriation bill barring the Agency from becoming involved on farms with ten or fewer employees.

A spokesperson for the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment notes the historical political aversion to regulating farms.  Surveillance of bovine influenza-H5N1 is clearly inadequate at present with only a proportion of workers subject to sampling by conjunctival and nasal swabs that are assayed for the presence of H5 influenza RNA by PCR.

At the outset it must be recognized that dairy herd operators are reluctant to allow more comprehensive sampling of both personnel and herds.  Workers are also reluctant to cooperate with state and federal authorities as many are undocumented and are concerned over termination of employment or even deportation.

Unless health authorities have a clear understanding of the extent of bovine influenza H5N1 with respect to the incidence rate (new cases within a specified time period), persistence of the infection in bovine and human cases will rise together with heightened risk to poultry farms and workers.

As usual, USDA-APHIS has been passive and belatedly reactive to the emerging outbreak.  Limiting interstate movement of animals from farms with a positive milk assay is an inadequate response. Administrators at the agency appear to be influenced in their decisions by political expediency rather than scientific rigor. In addition to the voluntary assay of pooled milk samples, dairy animals and workers should be subjected to a structured program of surveillance for the presence of H5N1 antigen using PCR. A complementary serologic assay program should be implemented to determine the prevalence of antibody denoting exposure in non-clinical cases.

Until the second quarter of 2024, the risk to poultry farms of infection with H5N1 was associated with seasonal migration of free-living waterfowl.  It now appears that the dairy industry represents more permanent reservoir of infection.  Accordingly, surveillance should be intensified since the egg industry may now be subject to a year-round risk of exposure. The 600 lb. gorilla in the corner of the room is the possibility of emergence of a more pathogenic or even a contagious (person-to-person) zoonotic strain of mammal-adapted H5N1. The risk is low but the economic and practical consequences could be immense. Did we learn anything from COVID?