least we forget
http://www.itchmo.com/read/melamine-spi ... s_20070429 Melamine Spiking in Food “Widespread” For Years We will just let the story speak for itself. Highlights are below. NOTE: The article went missing on the IHT site. It is now back on the IHT site. No more denials, no more hemming and hawing by the FDA. Time to take massive cautionary action is now. It’s not just animal feed anymore. It’s not just pet food. It’s a crisis. It’s been going on for years. It’s being done in “wheat, corn, soybean or other proteins”. All ingredients and foods imported from abroad needs to be tested now. Period. Any food that used suspect ingredients should be recalled. ASAP. Highlights below from the IHT article (emphasis ours): Here at the Shandong Mingshui Great Chemical Group factory, huge boiler vats are turning coal into melamine, which is used to create plastics and fertilizer. But the leftover melamine scrap, small acorn-sized chunks of white rock, is then being sold to local entrepreneurs, who say they secretly mix a powdered form of the scrap into animal feed to artificially enhance the protein level. “It just saves money,” says a manager at an animal feed factory here. “Melamine scrap is added to animal feed to boost the protein level.” The practice is widespread in China. For years animal feed sellers have been able to cheat buyers by blending the powder into feed with little regulatory supervision, according to interviews with melamine scrap traders and agricultural workers here. “Many companies buy melamine scrap to make animal feed, such as fish feed,” says Ji Denghui, general manager of the Fujian Sanming Dinghui Chemical Company. “I don’t know if there’s a regulation on it. Probably not. No law or regulation says ‘don’t do it,’ so everyone’s doing it. The laws in China are like that, aren’t they? If there’s no accident, there won’t be any regulation.” Most local feed companies do not admit that they use melamine. But last Friday here in Zhangqiu, a fast-growing industrial city southeast of Beijing, a pair of animal feed producers explained in great detail how they purchase low-grade wheat, corn, soybean or other proteins and then mix in small portions of nitrogen-rich melamine, whose chemical properties give a bag of animal feed an inflated protein level under standard tests. “If you add it in small quantities, it won’t hurt the animals,” said one animal feed entrepreneur whose name is being withheld to protect him from prosecution. The man - who works in a small animal feed operation that consists of a handful of storage and mixing areas - said he has mixed melamine into animal feed for years. We’ve always suspected that this problem went back further than Menu Foods and this article confirms our suspicions. Again, we may never know the degree of deaths and illnesses in pets as many have long died and evidence has been lost. Also, in other news. ChemNutra says MenuFoods was using 80 tons of wheat gluten from another source. [/url] |
|
|
I am so angry about this I could spit nails.  |
We really need some regulations on pet food. This is getting ridiculous! I feel like an idiot at work, people calling to ask if their food is on the list, it's not, then a week later another list, another ingredient, it's crazy. Of course since our hospital sells Hill's and Medical we are incouraged to steer people towards the prescription diets (which I don't do....don't tell my boss!  )
There are so many animals with diarrhea from owners changing their food every week, it's crazy! There maybe something to be said for the BARF diet, at least you know WHAT your pets are eating! I don't even know if I trust the lables anyway, I don't believe there are much regulations on that either? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm so confused, I won't even know what to tell people to look for on the lables. Wheat Gluten, Rice protein....what else? Would you agree that it is ANY protein sourced from abroad? The problem is that is not on any lable, maybe that is what we need, the companies would be required to record where they have obtained their ingredients. AARRRRRGGGGG! |
| Still more:
FDA Home Page | Federal-State | Import Program | Compliance | Inspection | Science | ORA Search IA #99-29, 4/27/07, IMPORT ALERT #99-29, "DETENTION WITHOUT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF ALL VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA FOR ANIMAL OR HUMAN FOOD USE DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF MELAMINE AND/OR MELAMINE ANALOGS" TYPE OF ALERT: Detention Without Physical Examination (Countrywide) (Note: This import alert represents the Agency's current guidance to FDA field personnel regarding the manufacturer(s) and/or products(s) at issue. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person, and does not operate to bind FDA or the public). PRODUCTS: Wheat Gluten Rice Gluten Rice Protein Rice Protein Concentrate Corn Gluten Corn Gluten Meal Corn By-Products Soy Protein Soy Gluten Proteins (includes amino acids and protein hydrosylates) Mung Bean Protein PRODUCT 02G[][]08 - Soy Bean Meal/Powder/Gluten/Protein Isolate CODES: 18E[][]03 Soy Protein Powder 02F[][]08 Wheat Gluten 02E[][]06 - Wheat Flour Gluten 71M[][]01 Wheat Gluten 02D[][]12 Rice Protein 02D[][]13 Rice Gluten 71I[][]03 Rice Protein 71G[][]02 - Corn Gluten 02B[][][][] Milled Rice Products 54[][][][][]- Amino acids and protein hydrosylates PROBLEM: Poisonous or Deleterious Substance Unfit For Food Unsafe Food Additive PAF: PES COUNTRY: China (CN) MANUFACTURER/SHIPPER: All CHARGES: "The article is subject to refusal of admission pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to bear or contain a poisonous or deleterious substance, which may render it injurious to health [Adulteration, section 402(a)(1)]" and/or "The article is subject to refusal of admission pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to bear or contain a food additive that is unsafe within the meaning of section 409 [Adulteration, section 402(a)(2)(C)(i)]" and/or "The article is subject to refusal of admission pursuant to section 801(a)(3) in that it appears to be unfit for food [Adulteration, 402(a)(3)]" RECOMMENDING OFFICE: Division of Import Operations and Policy, HFC-170 REASON FOR ALERT: In recent weeks, there has been an outbreak of cat and dog deaths and illness associated with pet food manufactured with vegetable proteins contaminated with melamine and melamine related compounds. In response to this outbreak, FDA has been conducting an aggressive and intensive investigation. Pet food manufacturers and others have recalled dog and cat food and other suspect products and ingredients. This has been one of the largest pet food recalls in history, a recall that continues to expand. Thus far, 18 firms have recalled product, 17 Class I and 1 class II, covering over 5,300 product lines. As of April 26, 2007, FDA had received over 17,000 consumer complaints relating to this outbreak, and those complaints included reports of approximately 1950 deaths of cats and 2200 deaths of dogs. The Agency is working with federal, state, and local governments, academia, and industry to assess the extent of the outbreak, better understand how melamine and melamine related compounds contributed to the pet deaths and illnesses, and to determine the underlying cause of the contamination. As of April 26, 2007, FDA had collected approximately 750 samples of wheat gluten and products made with wheat gluten and, of those tested thus far, 330 were positive for melamine and/or melamine related compounds. FDA had also collected approximately 85 samples of rice protein concentrate and products made with rice protein concentrate and, of those tested thus far, 27 were positive for melamine and/or melamine related compounds. FDA's investigation has traced all of the positive samples as having been imported from China. Although FDA's investigation is ongoing, the Agency has learned the following about the outbreak and its association with contaminated vegetable proteins from China: 1. For the vegetable proteins and finished products that have been found to be contaminated, it is unknown who the actual manufacturers are, how many manufacturers there are, or where in China they may be located. The samples of vegetable proteins that have tested positive for the presence of melamine and melamine analogs have, thus far, been traced to two Chinese firms, Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd. and Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Co. Ltd. Records relating to the importation of these products indicate that these two firms had manufactured the ingredients in question. There is strong evidence, however, that these firms are not the actual manufacturers. Moreover, despite many weeks of investigation, it is still unknown who the actual manufacturer or manufacturers of the contaminated products imported from China are. All of the contaminated wheat gluten has thus far been traced to Xuzhou Anying. According to the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) of the Chinese government, Xuzhou Anying purchased its wheat gluten from 25 different manufacturers and Xuzhou Anying may just be a supplier. Press statements by Xuzhou Anying state that it did not manufacturer the wheat gluten it had shipped to United States that has been associated with the outbreak, but that it received that wheat gluten from other sources not named in the press statements. Despite its investigation into the matter, FDA has been unable to determine who, in fact, the actual manufacturer(s) are. 2. The source of the contamination problem is currently unknown and FDA has been unable to isolate the scope of the problem. Melamine is a molecule that has a number of commercial and industrial uses. Other than a few limited authorizations for use in food contact materials for human food, melamine has no approved use as an ingredient in human or animal food in the United States. FDA is continuing its investigation into how the melamine and melamine related compounds may have gotten into the vegetable protein, and has asked the Chinese government to help with this investigation. In addition, FDA does not know how widespread the problem in China might be. For example, FDA does not know which regions of the country may or may not be impacted by the problem, which firms are the major manufacturers and exporters of vegetable proteins to the United States, where these vegetable proteins are grown in China, and what controls are currently in place to prevent against contamination. According to the Chinese government, Xuzhou Anying did not declare the contaminated wheat gluten it shipped to the United States as a raw material for feed or food. Rather, according to the Chinese government, it was declared to them as non-food product, meaning that it was not subject to mandatory inspection by the Chinese government. In addition, in a communication to the U.S. government, the Chinese government has requested that FDA either request or require that U.S. importers of plant protein products insist on AQSIQ certification, based on AQSIQ testing, as part of the import contract. According to a media report, China's Foreign Ministry issued a statement that the contaminated vegetable protein managed to get past Chinese customs without inspection because it had not been declared for use in pet food. The news report said the contamination problem has prompted China to step up inspections of plant-based proteins and to list melamine as a banned substance for food exports and domestic sales. This information indicates that there are manufacturing control issues that cannot be linked to specific sources in China, but instead require country-wide monitoring. 3. On April 17, 2007, pet food manufacturers in South Africa recalled dry cat and dog food due to formulation with a contaminated corn gluten, a vegetable protein. FDA has learned that the corn gluten was contaminated with melamine and that the corn gluten had been imported from a third-party supplier in China. According to news reports, the contaminated pet food has been linked to the deaths of approximately 30 dogs in South Africa. GUIDANCE: Districts may detain without physical examination, all Vegetable protein products from China. Appropriate screening criteria have been set. For questions or issues concerning science, science policy, sample collection, analysis, preparation, or analytical methodology, contact Mr. Thomas Savage, Division of Field Science, at 301-827- 1026. If a firm, shipper or importer believes that their product should not be subject to detention under this import alert they should forward information supporting their position to FDA at the following address: Food and Drug Administration Division of Import Operations and Policy (HFC-170) 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12-36 Rockville, MD 20587 In order to adequately assess whether a manufacturer has the appropriate controls and processes in place to ensure the quality of the product being produced, the firm or shipper must provide the following information: 1. Documentation showing that a minimum of five (5) consecutive entries have been released by FDA based on third party laboratory analyses using FDA recommended methods and that all shipments did not contain the presence of melamine and/or melamine analogs. AND 2. Certificate, such as from AQSIQ, indicating that an inspection of the manufacturer was conducted and adequate controls are in place. Information should also include: a. Copy of the inspectional reports and compliance status of the manufacturer. b. If products were sampled during the course of the inspection, test results indicating that the products are free of melamine and/or melamine analog. All requests for removal (exemption) from DWPE will be forwarded by DIOP to CVM (HFV-230) or CFSAN (HFS-606) for evaluation depending on the intended final use in animal or human food. PRIORITIZATION GUIDANCE: I FOI: No purging required KEYWORDS: Feed, pet food, human food, melamine, gluten, protein, concentrate, rice, wheat, corn, soy, mung bean PREPARED BY: Cathie Marshall, CVM, HFV-232, 240-276-9217 Salvatore Evola, CFSAN, HFS-606- 302-436-2164 Linda Wisniowski, DIOP, HFC-172, 301-443-6553 DATE LOADED INTO FIARS: April 27, 2007 ATTACHMENT Firms and products exempt from detention without physical examination (Currently there are no firms listed in the attachment) |
| And the news keeps rolling on......Before we get all negative on China, turns out we have had some grain mishandling here:
Quote: Spiked wheat. (Schuler Grain Co. uses additive to artificially boost the protein content of its wheat) From: FDA Consumer | Date: 12/1/1990 | Author: Snider, Sharon Print Digg del.icio.us Spiked Wheat A tip from a disgruntled former employee of a large Minnesota grain company led to court-ordered heavy fines and probation for the owners last February. Schuler Grain Co. in Breckenridge, Minn., was using an additive to artificially boost the protein content of its wheat and thereby increases the price it brought on the market. Ultimately, the Schulers' profit came out of the consumer's pocket--for higher-priced baked goods at the grocery store. In August 1985, the tipster told the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the firm's illegal activities. USDA in turn notified FDA. Investigation by FDA's Minneapolis district office confirmed that urea, a chemical used primarily in fertilizer and feed for cattle, was being illegally added to the wheat before being sold to flour companies. Last February, George M. and Robert V. Schuler, owners of Schuler Grain Co., pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to three counts of selling adulterated wheat in 1985. They were fined $250,000 each and placed on three years' probation. Earlier, they had agreed to to pay more than $400,000 to the Pillsbury Co., which had purchased the adulterated wheat. "Adding urea to wheat is a blatant effort to make a fast buck by deceiving buyers," said assistant U.S. attorney Douglas R. Peterson, who prosecuted the case. He added that the Schulers "enjoyed artificial profits while grain buyers were bilked." The price of wheat is determined by the protein content. Buyers test for protein by measuring the amount of nitrogen in the grain. The addition of urea, a high-nitrogen chemical, increases the protein test results. Wheat typically contains from 11 to 14 percent protein and sells for from $2.50 to $4.50 per bushel, depending on the market. A 1 percent difference in protein can make a 5 to 80 cent difference in price per bushel. (In terms of value, 11 percent protein is considered low and 14 percent is considered high.) When FDA received the tip about the company, it sent its investigators to inspect the Schulers' operation. When Thomas Nelson and Dirk Mouw arrived at the company's grain elevators, there was no sign of the tanks and pipes needed to treat wheat with urea--just a suspiciously empty steel building smelling strongly of ammonia. "One thing for sure about inspecting grain elevators," Nelson said. "you always get dirty. This particular building was clean as a whistle. We learned later they had dismantled all their treating equipment. Someone apparently had warned them we were coming." The investigators spent a day and a half on the premises. During that time, they collected wheat scrapings from one of the grain dryers that FDA lab analysis later revealed contained as much as 33 percent urea. During the next 10 days, FDA investigators took wheat samples from local farm bins where Schuler wheat was stored. One percent of urea was found in some of the wheat. As a result of FDA's investigation, during October and November 1985, U.S. marshals seized three bins and 26 railroad cars of wheat in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area and three barges of wheat--two in New Orleans and one in Chattanooga--bound for foreign ports. What the Schulers did, said Walter Stauffacher, FDA compliance officer for the Minneapolis district, was to wait for a period when the nitrogen content of local wheat was about 11 percent, buy it from farmers at the low market price, boost the nitrogen content with urea, then sell it to companies such as Pillsbury for a higher price per bushel. Higher nitrogen wheat is believed to produce superior baked goods. Pillsbury passed the higher cost on to bakeries, which in turn passed the cost on to consumers. "It was the consumer who ultimately got shortchanged," Stauffacher said. In 1985, the Schulers made an estimated $750,000 on adulterated wheat. During FDA's investigation, evidence was found that suggested the Schulers also sold adulterated wheat in 1975 and 1981, Stauffacher said. The urea did not pose a health hazard, he said, because there is no known toxic effect of 1 percent levels of urea in food. Urea is currently approved by FDA as an additive in yeast used for baked goods and alcoholic beverages. During sentencing, the brothers had difficulty admitting they had done anything wrong, Nelson said. "They maintained they were just trying to enhance the protein content of wheat to increase their profit margin. To them, increasing the profit margin with an illegal additive and cheating were not the same thing." |
SheepieBoss wrote: Still more:
FDA Home Page | Federal-State | Import Program | Compliance | Inspection | Science | ORA Search IA #99-29, 4/27/07, IMPORT ALERT #99-29, "DETENTION WITHOUT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF ALL VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA FOR ANIMAL OR HUMAN FOOD USE DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF MELAMINE AND/OR MELAMINE ANALOGS" TYPE OF ALERT: Detention Without Physical Examination (Countrywide) Can you supply a link to this info, or instructions on how to find it? Thanks. |
| Sure Ron, if you want to sub the link instead of the long article, I understand.
http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia9929.html sheepieboss |
| Not at all... I want to cite the link in here and in the main thread.
THANKS |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|