FDA detains Chinese food imports.

May 1, 2007 10:49 AM

Melamine found in almost half of all Chinese food imports now on the banned list.The Food and Drug Administration is enforcing a new import alert that greatly expands its curtailment of some food ingredients imported from China, authorizing border inspectors to detain ingredients used in everything from noodles to breakfast bars. The FDA has also announced that melamine laced products have found their way into the human consumption cycle via poultry and pork. Interesting to note that the budget for FDA inspections is at it's lowest level ever, and that only 1% of all imports actually get inspected.
posted by dejah420 (75 comments total)

Wow, what a story. Thanks for posting this.
posted by voltairemodern at 10:56 AM on May 1, 2007

just another benefit of outsourcing
posted by pyramid termite at 10:58 AM on May 1, 2007

I knew there was a good reason I didn't like Chinese food. Bastards.
posted by petersn1 at 11:02 AM on May 1, 2007

I couldn't find the information on the actual CFIA website, but according to the CBC, Canada's Food Inspection Agency has also ordered border inspections and seizures of vegetable protein for the same reason.

Thanks for posting this. Scary.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:05 AM on May 1, 2007

There's a war on; the FDA can't be distracted with trivialities like this.
posted by BaxterG4 at 11:05 AM on May 1, 2007

... The agencies also said there was a “low-risk” to humans and no food recalls were expected at this time. They are uncertain how many chickens were involved, how many entered the food supply or where they went.

“We haven’t completed counting yet,” said USDA spokesman Keith Williams. ...

Little-known fact: The FDA doesn't ever do anything until after there have been problems reported by others. They don't really provide oversight or examination of anything except for pharmaceuticals, and they rely heavily on manufacturers for that too.
posted by amberglow at 11:05 AM on May 1, 2007

Everything has to be brought to their attention from outside the Dept. itself first, or they don't know and don't care.
posted by amberglow at 11:06 AM on May 1, 2007

posted by pyramid termite at 7:58 PM

just another benefit of outsourcing

Is it really outsourcing that is the root of the problem or /lax regulations/indifference/ by the chinese government?
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:09 AM on May 1, 2007

And FDA Commissioners are always almost entirely doctors, not food nor product safety experts. (the current head is a cancer doc)
posted by amberglow at 11:09 AM on May 1, 2007

from dejah's last link: ...The FDA also doesn't require that exporting countries have safety systems equivalent to those in the USA. The USDA does that for countries that export meat and poultry, and the Government Accountability Office — the investigative arm of Congress — has said for at least a decade that the FDA should, too.

"The FDA has so few resources, all it can do is target high-risk things, give a pass to everything else and hope it is OK," says William Hubbard,a former FDA associate commissioner who retired in 2005."The public probably has the perception … that they're more protected than they really are." ...
posted by amberglow at 11:13 AM on May 1, 2007

Apparently this stuff is put in on purpose, not by accident. It inflates protein test results. Put poison in to inflate test results? That's f***ing sick.
posted by caddis at 11:13 AM on May 1, 2007

Is it really outsourcing that is the root of the problem or /lax regulations/indifference/ by the chinese government?

we don't get to vote for the chinese government, do we? ... we don't get to send letters to the agencies that regulate companies, we don't get to put pressure on the legislators, we don't have any influence over them

outsourcing = lack of control
posted by pyramid termite at 11:14 AM on May 1, 2007

Little-known fact: The FDA doesn't ever do anything until after there have been problems reported by others. They don't really provide oversight or examination of anything except for pharmaceuticals, and they rely heavily on manufacturers for that too.

See? Government can't do anything right. Might as well gut the FDA and give the consumer a tax rebate.

What will happen is, the free market will settle this on its own. Consumers will stop buying products made with tainted ingredients, manufacturers will stop buying those tainted ingredients, and the suppliers who supplied them will go out of business.

You may say - pets and possibly people have to die before anything happens, and our only recourse is to vote with our wallets? Well, yes - the FDA exists, and that's what happened anyways.

/sarcasm
posted by fleetmouse at 11:15 AM on May 1, 2007

Food imports seldom checked -- "Odds favor rogue producers over underfunded, understaffed FDA, critics say."
posted by ericb at 11:16 AM on May 1, 2007

The irony is that had these food products come from the US, they would have been subject to the scrutiny of the USDA, which does inspect, routinely recalls and destroys food, and acts relatively quickly when there are farmers. Furthermore, US grown products are subject to product liability suits. Who do you sue in China?

There is absolutely no reason for the United States to be importing food.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:24 AM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

acts relatively quickly when there are farmers problems.

ugh.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:25 AM on May 1, 2007

I would of thought the FDA would be harder on food imports, as it gives the U.S. an advantage in terms international trade. Like when the U.S. banned Canadian meat for mad cow disease it benefited the U.S. beef industry. Bans of foreign food are a sort of one sided tariff that can't be retaliated against because of trade agreements.
posted by bobo123 at 11:27 AM on May 1, 2007

Here's the plan:

1. Regulate food imports and sales using a government bureaucracy, a type of organization well known for carrying out plans efficiently and effectively.

2. Encourage consumer apathy over food choices by taking the hard work out of eating right. After all, if the government says it's safe, it has to be.

3a. Profit for those who slip through the net. This'll never happen; State-run monopolies are infallible.

3b. Mass contamination and pet death. Don't worry, the FDA won't let this happen, because they are on your side and have your best interests at heart.

4. Widespread loss of faith in centralized approval agencies trying to protect consumers from themselves rather than let people take responsibility for what they eat, what they smoke, and what they feed their cat. This will also never happen, because most people prefer faceless bureaucracies, political parties, and agribusiness to make their decisions for them.

/not sarcasm as such
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:34 AM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

A friend of mine, Zhou Qing, won an award for a book based on his two-year long investigation of food safety in China. There's an extract in English here; the whole book is due out in translation I believe, if you want to scare yourself out of ever eating anything in or from China again.
posted by Abiezer at 11:37 AM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

This is interesting if true:

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.

Dunno whether this is true or just crocodile tears. But if it's true and various companies were importing proteins that were exported as NOT FOOD, the companies can't complain that they just got a bum shipment from unscrupulous suppliers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:37 AM on May 1, 2007

posted by pyramid termite at 8:14 PM

outsourcing = lack of control

I absolutely agree. However, in any decent democracy, lack of control isn't really an issue; we can assume that the government (laws, regulations, etc) of the country and its people (debates, demonstrations, etc) make sure that the food is ok. If not for their own well-being (they eat the same stuff, I presume) and ours then because it's very bad PR.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 11:42 AM on May 1, 2007

My God, consumers must be such lazy collectivist idiots to not be scrupulously testing their pet food for melamine.
posted by fleetmouse at 11:55 AM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Oh shit.

/drops noodles.
posted by Artw at 11:57 AM on May 1, 2007

For anyone who might be concerned about their baby's rice cereal & formula: I just called Gerber, and they get their rice locally (Texas and Louisiana), so are "confident" that their cereal is not contaminated. They also mentioned that they perform rigorous testing on all of their products. I'm waiting for an e-mail from Target regarding their soy formula and will post the results when I get them.

When the guy at Target was giving me my case number, he said that he would expect an answer in a day or two, but if I got "antsy", to call & use that number. I'm not sure if that's an insult, or just a poor word choice on his part.
posted by minda25 at 11:57 AM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

2. Encourage consumer apathy over food choices by taking the hard work out of eating right. After all, if the government says it's safe, it has to be.

Baffling. Are we supposed to run our own food-testing labs in our basements? Or just grow our own food?

Knowing this kind of information, FDA or no FDA, wouldn't require "hard work," but superpowers. I guess anybody who doesn't have those just deserves to die, then.
posted by emjaybee at 11:59 AM on May 1, 2007

The feds are still looking for the E. coli: As the bacterial outbreaks in Pennsylvania and California show, the USDA's food-safety division has trouble tracking down the slaughterhouses that produce tainted meat.
posted by homunculus at 12:01 PM on May 1, 2007

I live in chinatown. I am scared. I am scared in chinatown. I live scared.
posted by milarepa at 12:06 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Oh, and the Pet Connection Blog that has helped push this story, maintains that pet deaths...and possibly livestock deaths...are still underreported.
posted by emjaybee at 12:07 PM on May 1, 2007

I would of thought the FDA would be harder on food imports, as it gives the U.S. an advantage in terms international trade.

Except according to free trade rules, we legally can't do something like that. Canada, for example, is actually suing under WTO rules that France's ban on asbestos is an unfair economic burden on their... umm.. asbestos industry. Seriously.

The bigger problem here isn't foreign production, it's consolidated production. It's great that this contamination isn't in a U.S. manufacturing facility, but the rapid consolidation of food production into factory farming means that if one facility did get contaminated here, we'd be a hundred times more screwed than we would have been fifty years ago.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:11 PM on May 1, 2007

pyramid termite writes "just another benefit of outsourcing"

"Outsourcing" refers to moving business services operations oversees. This is simply "importing".
posted by mr_roboto at 12:24 PM on May 1, 2007

Or overseas. Whatever.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:25 PM on May 1, 2007

Also, i don't think there's enough wheat or rice grown in the US for a giant company like General Mills or Kelloggs, etc--don't they produce hundreds of millions of boxes of cereal each year?
posted by amberglow at 12:27 PM on May 1, 2007

About fifteen years ago, my roommate and I were having a small party with some co-workers, and I was making a spinach salad. One co-worker, incredulous that I was washing the spinach, actually got mad when I said that I was washing dirt out of it. He yelled, "THE GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T SELL US DIRTY LETTUCE!!" and stormed out of the party.

I wonder where he is now.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:29 PM on May 1, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

and most if not all fast food companies must be importing wheat for buns--they import beef from many diff. countries.
posted by amberglow at 12:29 PM on May 1, 2007

Egg Pirates!
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:29 PM on May 1, 2007

Baffling. Are we supposed to run our own food-testing labs in our basements? Or just grow our own food?

No, if you're not a food expert, you just do what non-techy folk do when they decide which computer to buy: read reviews, listen to knowledgeable friends, and subscribe to publications by consumer testing organizations. The only reason there isn't a Food Digest, or whatever, on the news stands is because nobody wants to compete with a government monopoly that everyone thinks does the job already (perhaps this article will change things).

And on the drug side, it seems plenty of people are willing to work out what's safe and what's not without any official guidance. Why not let them?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 12:33 PM on May 1, 2007

Are you seriously comparing buying a computer with testing food for poisons, because they really aren't the same thing at all. I mean, in one case you end up with a crap computer, in the other you end up sick or dead. And I suspect it'll be poor people who don't have the resources or knowledge to test food themselves who get screwed the most if you got rid of the FDA.

And on the drug side, it seems plenty of people are willing to work out what's safe and what's not without any official guidance. Why not let them?

Because people aren't doctors? Because most people are stupid?
posted by chunking express at 12:41 PM on May 1, 2007

The FDA is happy to be a hard-ass about some food imports. Want to buy some raw-milk French Brie in New York? Can't have any. Want some sublime nitrate-free jamon serrano from Spain? Guess you better fly to Spain and eat it there.

(Of course, there's a whole gray/black market for these delights, but you can no longer waltz into your local Whole Foods and spend too much money on European raw-milk cheeses aged less than 60 days.)
posted by rtha at 12:45 PM on May 1, 2007

FDA this, FDA that, blah, blah

Where is the hate for the people who knowingly poisoned the food in the first place? The FDA was merely incompetent. The people who spiked the food are evil.
posted by caddis at 12:48 PM on May 1, 2007

Chunking, I expect we'll never see eye to eye on this, but yes, I am comparing food to computers, and I'd compare it to all kinds of crazy consumer products. Nobody will ever test food themselves because the alternative to the FDA is not no FDA, but many competing FDAs. Maybe some people couldn't afford to subscribe to the food magazines, but knowledge has a way of getting out, especially when people care about knowing. And if someone was in the position of not knowing whether to trust a particular food or not, wouldn't they just eat more local, simple, organic food? Is that such a bad thing?

>And on the drug side, it seems plenty of people are willing to work out what's safe and what's not without any official guidance. Why not let them?

Because people aren't doctors? Because most people are stupid?

I was talking about recreational drugs, but why not let doctors work out what medical drugs are safe to take? If you are sensible, you'll listen to their findings, and if you're stupid, then no amount of legislation will save you from yourself.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 12:58 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Great. Now even the "trustworthy" companies are being affected - Blue Buffalo just pulled all of their canned cat and dog foods because one of their suppliers was apparently adding the Chinese rice without the consent or knowledge of Blue Buff... and here I thought my cats were protected from this shit by purchasing organic cat food from a normally responsible company.
posted by caution live frogs at 1:00 PM on May 1, 2007

FDA this, FDA that, blah, blah

Where is the hate for the people who knowingly poisoned the food in the first place? The FDA was merely incompetent. The people who spiked the food are evil.


True, caddis, but when regulation is nonexistent and businesses compete on a price basis alone (aka, the free market of the neocons/neoliberals) evil cheaters will drive honest companies out of business in short order.
posted by jamjam at 1:11 PM on May 1, 2007

Food and computers? Really?

Despite my love for my laptop, I would not actually die - or need a liver transplant - if it broke. If I go out and buy the wrong computer, or a faulty computer, it will not kill me (unless I die from the hours spent on hold with tech support).

And which "particular" food should I be wary of? What if the free-range organic chicken I eat comes from a (local) farm that feeds its chickens food containing melamine? And that local organic spinach? Full of e. coli.
posted by rtha at 1:16 PM on May 1, 2007

Also, i don't think there's enough wheat or rice grown in the US for a giant company like General Mills or Kelloggs, etc

Had to look this up.

US wheat output varies year to year, but is generally about 2 billion bushels or 70 billion liters, or about 55 million tonnes.

This is equivalent to a US-style football field stacked about 15 kilometers deep.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:20 PM on May 1, 2007

sebastienbaillard: I was totally thinking of the fake eggs thing too.

My uncle (rest his good soul) was approached by some 'investors' about adding plastic to the chocolate in his factory in china to boost profit margins. He was disgusted and refused. According to him, adding synthetic materials to foodstuffs is not uncommon in Asia, and as someone pointed out earlier, these materials are shipped under guises other than food ingredients.

China/Asia has a big counterfeit food problem, which makes me really squeamish about eating too much of their stuff.
posted by Extopalopaketle at 1:21 PM on May 1, 2007

You are right, I don't think we'll see eye to eye. Corporate interests rarely align with public well being for starters. Look at how HMOs are run for example. I think something like the FDA needs to exist, and I don't see how privatizing it would make it magically work better. If anything the infrastructure and policy required to actually go about testing food and drugs must be complicated.
posted by chunking express at 1:22 PM on May 1, 2007

This is all clearly Alf's doing. Look at it piece by piece.

First, it is well known that Alf likes to eat cats. More dead cats = more delicious Alf chow.

Second, remember that Alf is from planet Melmac. It follows from this that he should be immune from the effects of melamine, since Melmac is made from melamine.

Get your heads out of the sand, people. Strike back now.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:23 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Had to look this up.

US wheat output varies year to year, but is generally about 2 billion bushels or 70 billion liters, or about 55 million tonnes.

Thanks--How many pounds or tons of food products containing wheat on our shelves are produced every year? I think it's more. There's wheat or parts of wheat (like gluten) in so many things.

We certainly don't produce that much rice each year here--we'd need paddies all over the place.
posted by amberglow at 1:33 PM on May 1, 2007

USDA on Wheat: The United States is a major wheat-producing country, with output typically exceeded only by China, the European Union, and, sometimes, India. During the early 2000s, wheat ranked third among U.S. field crops in both planted acreage and gross farm receipts, behind corn and soybeans. Presently, almost half of the U.S. wheat crop is exported.

The U.S. wheat sector enters the 21st century facing many challenges, despite a strong domestic market for wheat products. U.S. wheat harvested area has dropped off 28 million acres, or nearly one-third from its peak in 1981, because of declining returns compared with other crops and alternative options under government programs. Despite rising global wheat trade, U.S. share of the world market has eroded in the past two decades.
...
posted by amberglow at 1:37 PM on May 1, 2007

rtha, your screen might wreck your eyesight, your mouse might give you RSI, and your Internet addiction might make you obese. But... I'm not going to argue that you should investigate computers as thoroughly as something which you put into your body, like food and sex toys (are those regulated? Is there a Federal Dildo Agency? I'm asking!).

And which "particular" food should I be wary of? What if the free-range organic chicken I eat comes from a (local) farm that feeds its chickens food containing melamine? And that local organic spinach? Full of e. coli.

If you can't even trust your local food, or the food that you've been happily eating for years, then I don't know if anyone would be able to help. The existence of the FDA, and other responsibility abstractors, has broken down the trust networks that used to exist between growers and eaters, and between consumers and producers in general. Bad things would happen if you switched off the FDA overnight without allowing those trust networks to be rebuilt.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:39 PM on May 1, 2007

Wheat Data: Yearbook Tables -- Total wheat food use
posted by amberglow at 1:40 PM on May 1, 2007

amberglow writes "We certainly don't produce that much rice each year here--we'd need paddies all over the place."

You'd be surprised. That link gives total production at 230,808,000 cwt, which is 23,080,800,000 pounds, or about 11.5 million tons. We're a major exporter, exporting about 14% of our crop. Consumption numbers are harder to come by, but this site estimates 26-27 lbs per capita annually, including beer. That comes out to about 5 million tons.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:47 PM on May 1, 2007

that is more than i would have thought. We import only 12% of rice each year.

This wheat import chart shows 2,000 thousand metric tons (is that 2 million metric tons?)
posted by amberglow at 2:00 PM on May 1, 2007

Slate Explainer: Given how much wheat is produced by American farmers, why do we need to import wheat gluten?--... Because it's cheaper than buying domestic gluten....
posted by amberglow at 2:06 PM on May 1, 2007

"Because it's cheaper than buying domestic gluten...."

We probably are buying gluten made by cheap labor processes from the wheat we export, eh?

Sheesh, profits have driven this country butt-ass stupid.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:29 PM on May 1, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

hoverboards don't work on water - ...sex toys (are those regulated?)...

The Dutch EPA weighs in.

Strangely enough, Greenpeace has an opinion, too.
posted by porpoise at 2:40 PM on May 1, 2007

Pastabagel writes "There is absolutely no reason for the United States to be importing food."

This was on the news locally and I was "WTF, Canada imports wheat!" "Next you'll be telling me we import rape seed".
posted by Mitheral at 3:03 PM on May 1, 2007

From this article:

Ji Denghui, manager of Sanming Dinghui Chemical Trading Co. in the eastern province of Fujian, said animal food companies are some of his best customers.

"A lot of animal food companies buy melamine from us to add in the animal feed," Ji said. "This can lower the production cost and increase nitrogen levels."
[...]
"I believe it won't do any harm if there is only very small amount," Ji said. "Otherwise, those companies could not do that."


and elsewhere in the same article:

In the past, Kapin said testing for nitrogen was a "quick and dirty way to screen for protein." He said several companies have said they would no longer rely on nitrogen tests to determine protein content, and instead would do more expensive tests that look for protein itself.

So in other words, selling adulterated products with the intent to defraud companies or consumers who are trying to buy high-protein pet food or gluten is all fine and dandy, it's just the safety that's at issue (reading between the lines of nearly every quote from a Chinese company).
posted by dilettante at 3:20 PM on May 1, 2007

This kind of thing really makes me revisit ideas like the 100 mile diet. Less for the smug eco-friendly wankery of it all and more for a desire to form a personal relationship with the farmers cultivating my food so I can be more certain there aren't any industrial chemicals in it.
posted by saraswati at 3:44 PM on May 1, 2007

This is their response: a Czar!

FDA appoints new food safety czar-- ... Responding to growing public concern over tainted foodstuffs, the Food and Drug Administration today named a new food safety czar and ordered him to draft a comprehensive strategy to better protect domestically produced and imported products....

A strategy they'll ignore, of course.
posted by amberglow at 5:11 PM on May 1, 2007

So ... is there any way to know which over-the-counter products contain ingredients made overseas?
posted by croutonsupafreak at 5:56 PM on May 1, 2007

Another tax cut will fix this just fine.
posted by homunculus at 7:19 PM on May 1, 2007

Canada, for example, is actually suing under WTO rules that France's ban on asbestos is an unfair economic burden on their... umm.. asbestos industry.

I hate free trade treaties. It places governments subservient to corporations.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:11 PM on May 1, 2007

Wait, melamine? You mean the stuff in that magic eraser and the soundproofing stuff?
posted by dirigibleman at 12:29 AM on May 2, 2007

dirigibleman writes "Wait, melamine? You mean the stuff in that magic eraser and the soundproofing stuff?"

That's a melamine polymer. The stuff should be non-toxic when it's polymerized.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:54 AM on May 2, 2007

Hey rtha, I've got some jamón serrano from Spain in my pantry. It's vacuum sealed in BPA kissed plastic. Yours if you like, it was a gift, but I don't eat pork.

My cat wants to know, why no Pet Food Safety Czar or Hairball Remedy Czar?

He adds: but please, no Catnip Czar, anything but that.
posted by lazymonster at 2:25 AM on May 2, 2007

lazymonster - my cats are in agreement with you!

(I thought of the serrano thing because when I worked at Whole Foods - which at the time, at least, had a policy of carrying only nitrate-free or very low nitrate cured meats - we had to stop carrying imported jamon serrano b/c the FDA was mandating higher levels of nitrates than WF would accept; perhaps wither WF or FDA policy has changed.)

Also, my cats would like a Petting Czar, and a We Can Scratch the Couch if We Feel Like It, Dammit! Czar.
posted by rtha at 9:14 AM on May 2, 2007

Also, my cats would like a Petting Czar, and a We Can Scratch the Couch if We Feel Like It, Dammit! Czar.

The administration is working on it, i'm sure--they do everything that makes it look like they're fixing problems while never fixing them. (for example, who was in charge--the Czar, if you will--of New Orleans' reconstruction? Mr. Rove. And they still can't find a war Czar, even tho it's clearly their own job.)
posted by amberglow at 4:28 PM on May 2, 2007

And they still can't find a war Czar, even tho it's clearly their own job.

Save-Stephen-Hadley’s-Reputation Czar

"Analysts speak out about National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley’s difficult effort to hire a high-profile 'war czar' to take over responsibilities 'that would ordinarily fall to Mr. Hadley himself':

'Steve Hadley is an intelligent, capable guy, but I don’t think this reflects very well on him,' said David J. Rothkopf, author of “Running the World,” a book about the National Security Council. 'I wouldn’t even call it a Hail Mary pass. It’s kind of a desperation move.'

Mr. Rothkopf sees the new position as 'a tactic to separate the national security adviser from Iraq' — a way to save Mr. Hadley’s reputation. Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton administration official who is co-writing a book on national security advisers, said the proposal 'raises profound questions' about Mr. Hadley’s 'ability to put heads together and make sure that the president’s wishes are in fact his commands.'"

It's not about solving difficult problems. It's about trying to secure one's repuation and legacy. Sorry, fellas. Too late for that.
posted by ericb at 5:24 PM on May 2, 2007

Food Chain Crisis - Much More Than Bad Chicken
posted by amberglow at 1:04 PM on May 3, 2007

USDA: 20 mln birds on farms may have had bad feed
posted by amberglow at 2:16 PM on May 5, 2007

Farmed fish have been fed meal spiked with the same chemical that has been linked to the pet food recall, but the contamination was probably too low to harm anyone who ate the fish, federal officials said Tuesday.

So I guess we now add farmed fish to the list of things that "probably" won't make us sick.
posted by Orb at 6:26 AM on May 9, 2007

CBC Radio spent quite a bit of airtime on impact this could have on the farmed salmon industry. Apparently they fed their fish a lot of melamine-contanimated crap, 'cause salmon are voracious protein-eaters.

But, hey, it's supposed to be safe to eat after the animal has digested it, right!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:22 PM on May 9, 2007

It's the whole "probably" and "we believe" when used with phrases like "won't harm humans" that bothers me. Fact is, I don't want to consume ANY melamine. I've seen what it does to dogs and cats, so I'd say the animal testing phase is now over, it apparently can be deadly to (at least) mammals, and living creatures, including humans, would be wise to avoid consuming it ... though that seems to get more difficult every time I read the news and something new has been contaminated.
posted by Orb at 2:36 PM on May 10, 2007

You have got to learn to trust Big Brother. Removes all your worries. You'd eat the salmon and declare it the best you ever did eat.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:51 PM on May 10, 2007