Jean Halloran

Trader Joe's Employees in the Dark About Their Meat

2013-03-05T12:45:07-05:00

Ask a Trader Joe's employee about the meat in your shopping basket, and you may or may not get an answer based on, well, facts.

Since we launched our Meat Without Drugs campaign last year asking Trader Joe's to stop selling meat raised with antibiotics, it's been radio silence from Dan Bane, the company CEO.

We've visited stores from coast to coast with our mascot, Joe the Pig, and stood before Trader Joe's asking for drug-free meat, gathered over a half million signatures to the company and sent tens of thousands of emails and postcards to their headquarters.

Since we began, we've received reports from over a 100 people who talked to Trader Joe's managers, employees, and customer service reps across the county with the request that the company stop selling meat raised on antibiotics. Recently, however, we've determined that in dozens of those conversations employees apparently made misleading claims.

From California to Oregon to New York to Maryland, people told us that staff members -- including a customer service rep at company headquarters -- said that Trader Joe's already does not sell meat raised on antibiotics. Since Consumers Union says otherwise, we began receiving concerned e-mails asking, in stark terms: "So who's lying"?

To get to the bottom of this, we called Trader Joe's headquarters in Southern California and spoke to VP of Marketing Matt Sloan. He confirmed that the responses from the staffers were indeed wrong, and "unfortunate and unintended." He reported that Trader Joe's headquarters had already sent information to the stores to help educate employees and customers about the different meat they sell, but that clearly "we have work to do."

Previous Consumers Union communications with Trader Joe's, along with surveys of their store shelves, show that the company offers three kinds of Trader Joe's-branded meat and poultry: Organic (and therefore inherently raised without antibiotics); their "Natural" line (which the company says is raised without antibiotics); and conventional (in which the animals are often administered antibiotics).

In most Trader Joe's stores, a shopper will typically find some options of beef and chicken that are Organic or Natural, but the rest of the meat -- including just about all pork products -- are conventional.

This raises concerns because some 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in this country are given not to sick people, but to healthy animals to promote growth and prevent disease in crowded and unsanitary conditions.

Antibiotics overuse is rapidly making antibiotics ineffective. Consumers Union is therefore urging Trader Joe's to lead the way to ending antibiotic overuse in livestock by ending the sale of meat raised with these drugs in its stores.

Some Trader Joe's employees clearly would like to believe their employer is already in the vanguard, and were quite creative in their explanations. A customer from Ventura, California was told specifically that only two percent of the meat sold at Trader Joe's was raised on antibiotics. A Portland, Maine store employee promised a customer that all of the meat sold at Trader Joe's was in fact organic (and had been for years), but the labels didn't indicate that in case they needed to switch suppliers quickly.

In another conversation in Reno, Nevada, the staff member reported that the government had recently passed a law that no grocery store in this country could sell poultry that had been given antibiotics. When the dubious customer pushed back, the employee swore it was true. (We wish it were!)

With thousands of employees across the country, we know it's probably difficult to make sure every staffer is up to speed on the attributes of their different meat lines -- although about 10 of the reported conversations were with store managers who really should be reliable sources of information on the company's product.

Ensuring customers accurate and honest information is the most basic responsibility of any business. But that's not enough. People assume that Trader Joe's is already doing the right thing on antibiotics because the company has built an image of affordable quality with high standards and a sense of responsibility to its customers. Selling meat raised on antibiotics goes directly against that reputation and thus confuses its customers and even its staff.

It's time for the company to live up to its customers' -- and its own employees -- expectations, and stop selling meat on drugs.

Arsenic and Rice: Concerning Levels of Known Human Carcinogen Found in Tests of More Than 200 Consumer Reports Samples

2012-09-19T15:12:05-04:00

Everyone knows arsenic is a poison--it is how countless villains have knocked off their victims in countless murder mysteries. However, it takes a lot of arsenic--relatively speaking, at least a teaspoon or two--to do someone in on the spot.

Much lower levels of arsenic, though, can cause health damage over long periods of time. Both animal and human studies have shown that what seem like tiny amounts of arsenic--exposures in the parts per billion range--can result in cancer years later. Just how carcinogenic arsenic may be is only now just coming to light. Arsenic is already considered to be one of the most potent carcinogens in our environment, but a new analysis still working its way through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that it may be even more potent than previously thought.

Given these new concerns, Consumer Reports decided to test rice and rice products (everything from Rice Krispies to rice milk) for arsenic. Why rice? Prior research has shown that rice generally contains more arsenic than other grains, probably because rice is grown in water-flooded conditions and absorbs arsenic from the soil and water. And arsenic is present on a lot of soil. Residues from decades of lead-arsenate insecticide use linger, even though their use was banned in the 1980s. Arsenic-containing drugs are also permitted for use on food animals to prevent disease and promote growth. As a result, fertilizer made from poultry waste can contain arsenic.

The news about rice products is not good. Consumer Reports indicated today that it found arsenic in virtually all of the more than 60 different rice products it tested, and recommends that people limit rice and rice product consumption in various ways. Consumer Reports suggests that infants be given a serving of rice cereal no more than once a day, and that children under five not consume rice milk (rice drinks) on a regular basis. Kids should eat no more than one and a half cups of ready-to-eat rice cereal, like Rice Checks or Rice Krispies in a week. Adults should limit themselves to two standard servings of rice per week. And once you have your quota of one product, that's it for all rice products for the week.

Are some rice products better than others? Maybe. Consumer Reports test represent a snapshot of the market from which they cannot draw any conclusions about any particular brands, but they did observe some trends. White rice grown in Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas generally had higher levels of total and inorganic arsenic (the most worrisome kind) than rice samples from elsewhere (India, Thailand and California as a group).

In addition, within any given brand, brown rice had more arsenic than white, although some individual brown rice samples were lower in arsenic compared to some white rice samples, possibly due to agricultural practices or where they were grown. Regardless of rice type and origin, Consumer Reports suggests adults adhere to the two-servings-a-week consumption limit. You can find suggested limits for consumption of all the rice products tested at consumerreports.org.

Is there anything else the individual consumer can do? Consumer Reports suggests that you cook rice the Asian way--rinse first and then cook with six cups of water to one cup of rice--and pour the excess water off at the end. Research suggests that this can remove some 30 percent of inorganic arsenic. In addition, kids under 6 shouldn't drink more than 4 to 6 ounces of apple or grape juice a day. Consumer Reports tests published this past January showed that they can contain elevated arsenic as well.

Also, if your home is not on a public water system, you should get your water tested for both arsenic and lead, as this can add to your total exposure. The local health department can generally recommend a certified lab.

For the longer term, however, the FDA and EPA should act to end the introduction of more arsenic into our food and our environment. It is urgent that FDA set standards for maximum levels of arsenic in various foods. We suggest a limit of 120 parts per billion in rice, and a level of just 3 parts per billion in apple and grape juice. (By way of reference, the New Jersey standard for arsenic in water is 5 parts per billion.)

Then FDA and EPA should address the sources of arsenic in food. Arsenic-containing herbicides can still be used on cotton; EPA should phase out this use since the arsenic can get into water and soil. Arsenic-containing drugs can be given to healthy chickens, turkeys, and pigs to promote growth and prevent diseases--FDA should prohibit this practice. And because of this drug use, relatively high levels of arsenic may end up in poultry manure, which can be used on rice fields as fertilizer, contaminating the crop. Until FDA prohibits feeding arsenic-containing drugs to chickens, rice farmers should not use poultry manure on fields.

Arsenic is a serious health concern. Given what we learning about arsenic's role in contributing to cancer and other serious health problems, the government needs to regulate it in food. This includes setting standards and banning the practices that persistently deliver arsenic into our food and water supply.

Meat on Drugs, Stop the Superbugs

2012-06-20T10:52:24-04:00

Antibiotics use is widespread in the production of livestock, helping to create "superbugs," and aggravating the public health problem of antibiotic resistance. To address these issues, Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, in a new report released today, "Meat on Drugs: The Overuse of Antibiotics in Food Animals and What Supermarkets and Consumers Can Do to Stop It," calls on supermarkets to stock only meat and poultry raised without antibiotics, and urges consumers to buy these products. Consumers Union is asking Trader Joe's to lead the transition by selling only meat and poultry raised without antibiotics.

Antibiotics, once called miracle drugs, may not be miraculous any more. With widespread use of antibiotics, many bugs have become immune to their effects. Doctors and scientists have cautioned that we must be much more careful in our use of these valuable medicines lest they lose even more of their effectiveness against deadly bacteria.

However, the biggest user of antibiotics in the United States today is not the medical profession, but rather the meat and poultry business. Some 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in this country are used not on people but on animals, to make them grow faster or to prevent disease in crowded and unsanitary growing facilities.

Consumer Union believes that to preserve antibiotics for treatment of diseases like pneumonia in people, use on animals must be drastically reduced. We think the most direct way to tackle this problem is at the supermarket. Consumer Reports sent shoppers to 136 stores in 23 states, belonging to the 13 largest supermarket chains, to see what kind of meat and poultry products raised without antibiotics are offered and at what price.

What they found is encouraging. The shoppers found that one chain, Whole Foods, is already offering nothing but meat and poultry raised without antibiotics. Several others--Giant, Hannaford, Shaw's, Stop & Shop, Publix, and Trader Joe's--had broad selections of these products. At only four chains were shoppers unable to find any organic or other products raised without antibiotics: Sam's Club, Food 4 Less, Food Lion, and Save-A-Lot.

The report also debunks the notion that meat and poultry raised without antibiotics has to be expensive. The Consumer Reports shoppers, who went out in the spring of 2012, found chicken raised without antibiotics for as little as $1.29 per pound in three chains--Publix, Jewel-Osco, and Trader Joe's.

Consumer Reports found broad public support for change. In a nationwide poll, 86 percent of consumers indicated that they thought that meat raised without antibiotics should be available in their local supermarket.

We're therefore excited to launch our new Meat Without Drugs, Stop the Superbugs Campaign with a companion website, www.MeatWithoutDrugs.org, and a new video in partnership with www.FixFood.org, a social media project of Food, Inc. Director Robert Kenner, narrated by actor Bill Paxton. Take a look at the video and then help us take action to change our food system.

Consumers, and the supermarkets they shop at, together can help solve the problem of antibiotic resistance, a problem that has eluded government regulators for more than four decades. Together we can say no to meat on drugs and stop the superbugs.

California Must Label Genetically Engineered Fish

2011-05-24T15:00:08-04:00

Today, Assembly Member Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), decided to postpone a vote on his bill, AB 88, The Consumer Right To Know Act, which would require the labeling of genetically engineered fish sold in California. Action on the bill, which did not have enough votes in the California Assembly to pass this week, will take place in January, awaiting FDA action. The FDA is deliberating whether or not it will approve, for the first time, genetically engineered (GE) animals into the food supply, labeled or not. Consumers Union has argued that GE fish should not be allowed into the food supply, and if it is, that it should be labeled. California residents who want to weigh in with their Assembly member can do so here.

Looming over consumers is the likelihood that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will approve the raising and selling of GE salmon--without labeling--in the very near future. The engineered fish grow to maturity twice as fast as normal salmon, thus potentially greatly increasing the profits of salmon farmers in countries such as Chile, but also threatening to contaminate wild salmon worldwide.

Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, opposed putting the salmon on the market at an FDA hearing last fall on the grounds that the agency's safety assessment was woefully inadequate. One of the most critical issues for FDA to assess is the potential for the GE fish to cause increased allergic responses, since many people are already allergic to fish.

Unfortunately, FDA allowed Aquabounty, the company developing the GE salmon, to declare that there was no increase in allergy-causing potential based on data from exactly six engineered fish--even when the data from those fish suggested there might be a problem.

At the very least, California should require a label on the GE fish so there can be post-market monitoring--so if people who have never been allergic to fish before start having allergic responses to this salmon, there will be a way for them, and their doctors, and food retailers, and FDA, to link these responses to their cause.

But there are other reasons to label as well. Some fish scientists have modeled what might happen if the GE fish accidentally escape from captivity, something that is common in conventional salmon farming. Their model predicted that a fish engineered with growth hormone could quickly cause the extinction of all wild fish of the same species.

Finally, there is the interesting fact that the genetic material introduced into this salmon to facilitate it growing faster comes from a fish called ocean pout, a member of the eel family. Eel is a prohibited food in several religious traditions, namely Jewish kosher and Muslim halal cooking. What may observant Jews and Muslims think about this fish? And how will they feel if they have no way to tell it apart from conventional salmon? What of bagels and lox?

Whatever their motives, consumers have a right to know what they are eating and to decide for themselves what to put on their plates.

Maine and Bisphenol-A: Of Beards and Breasts

2011-02-24T15:08:25-05:00

The Bangor Daily News yesterday quoted Maine Governor Paul LePage as unconcerned about residues of the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in food containers because, "The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."

The most shocking thing about this statement is the Governor's ignorance of basic biology. The Governor understands that BPA is estrogen-like, is present in many types of food containers, from baby bottles to water bottles to canned food liners, and migrates into food or baby formula from the container.

Consumer Reports tests found BPA to be present in everything from canned beans to vegetable soup.

Somehow the Governor seems to have confused estrogen, the hormone that makes girls look like girls, with testosterone, the hormone that makes men grow beards and controls other sex characteristics. Putting it in the Governor's terms, the thing you might worry about is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and heat it up, the worst case, is that some men might grow little breasts. Or something might happen to their sperm.

Not to worry, of course, although, in fact, a recent Kaiser Permanente study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility found that workers in Chinese factories that made or used BPA actually showed reduced sperm counts. The same researchers also found BPA-exposed workers had a consistently higher risk of male sexual dysfunction, including reduced sexual desire, erectile difficulty, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced satisfaction with sex life, than the unexposed workers.

Might this alter the Governor's thinking on this question?

Food, Inc.'s Eric Schlosser Urges Senate to Pass Food Safety Bill

2010-07-01T15:21:56-04:00

Safe and sustainable: we need our food to be both, and nowhere has the case been made better than in the Academy Award-nominated documentary, Food, Inc. Earlier this month, Consumers Union, long a proponent of safe, sustainable food, hosted an Activist Summit in Washington, D.C., which featured two of the film's leading voices: Barbara Kowalcyk, who lost her two-year-old son to beef suspected of contamination with E.coli 0157:H7, and whose struggle for tougher food safety laws is documented in the film, and Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, and the film's co-producer.

Schlosser is now joining with Consumers Union to urge consumers to fight for passage of FDA food safety reform legislation, which passed the House of Representatives last year and is now stalled awaiting action in the Senate.

That we need better measures to insure food safety is indisputable. Deaths from eating ordinary foods, from spinach to peanut butter, have made that clear. Leafy green processors, peanut butter factories, and other high-risk facilities should be inspected at least once a year, not once a decade, as the FDA currently averages. The FDA should have the authority to order recalls of tainted food, and not have to wheedle and cajole to get a company to retrieve a contaminated product. These changes are incorporated in S. 510, the FDA food safety bill pending in the Senate.

That we need a more sustainable food production system, one that involves smaller, more diverse, local production, is also clear. At the urging of the sustainable farming community, and supported by Consumers Union, provisions to protect sustainable farming have been incorporated into S. 510. The bill requires the FDA to develop new food safety standards in consultation with USDA that cannot be in conflict with organic standards. The FDA must consider maintaining biological diversity, impact on small farms, conservation and the environment in setting standards. The FDA must also take into account the needs of small businesses, and give small businesses more time to meet the new food safety standards.

As Schlosser says, it makes no sense to continue to let the food industry regulate itself. The Senate should pass S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act now. You can urge Congress do so here.