Posted on

Are Girl Scout Cookies Safe?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

Imagine you are “Emily”, a mom of two children in Ohio, who stumbled across a viral post warning that Thin Mints contained glyphosate—a chemical often dubbed a “probable carcinogen”—her heart sank. She had just stocked up on boxes from her daughter’s troop. Was she unknowingly feeding her family something dangerous?

If you’ve felt the same moment of panic scrolling through headlines or mom blogs, you’re not alone. In February 2025, a report citing trace levels of glyphosate, also known as RoundUp, and heavy metals in Girl Scout Cookies exploded across social media. The headlines were dramatic, but the data? Not so much.

How Did Glyphosate Get into Girl Scout Cookies?

First, it’s important to understand that glyphosate isn’t added to cookies. It gets there in ways that are both natural and inevitable in modern agriculture.

“Farmers don’t sprinkle glyphosate into cookie dough,” says an expert we spoke to who is a former USDA National Program Leader for Food Safety and a scientist with a background in pesticide toxicology. “It ends up there through pre-harvest applications, environmental drift, and trace exposure in processing equipment.”

Here’s why glyphosate gets detected on food and ag products:

  • Pre-harvest desiccation: About 30% of farmers apply glyphosate shortly before harvest to dry out wheat and oats evenly. This ensures a uniform, high-quality yield.
  • Environmental spread: Glyphosate can move through wind and water—just like pollen. Even non-treated fields can receive low levels from nearby farms.
  • Cross-contamination: Milling and baking equipment may retain microscopic residues from previous processing cycles.

Still, our expert emphasizes, “Glyphosate is very unstable. It breaks down during processing. By the time it’s made into cookie dough and baked, most of it is likely destroyed.”

The Math behind the Scare: How Much is Too Much?

Let’s talk numbers, because context matters:

  • EPA’s Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): 1.75 mg/kg body weight/day
  • For a 130-lb child: That’s 103 mg/day of glyphosate
  • Thin Mints tested at: ~0.28 parts per million = 0.00896 mg per 4-cookie serving
  • Glyphosate per cookie: ~0.00224 mg

Therefore, to hit the EPA’s daily limit, you’d need to eat: 103 ÷ 0.00224 = ~46,116 Thin Mints—in one day. How small is that? Our experts states:

“Ten years ago, we were measuring parts per million. Now we’re detecting parts per trillion—or even quadrillion. That’s like finding a single drop of dye in an Olympic-size swimming pool.”

That’s the level of sensitivity that triggered these headlines—not a real health risk.

Why Glyphosate is Still Essential to Farming—and the Planet

The Thin Mint headlines may be new, but glyphosate conversations are years old.

What often gets lost is why glyphosate exists in the first place—and why it’s still used.

  • Reduces tilling: By replacing mechanical weed removal, glyphosate helps preserve topsoil, reduce erosion, and limit greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Increases yield: Without glyphosate, crops are more vulnerable to weeds, pests, and droughts.
  • Helps feed the world: According to a 2022 review published in Frontiers in Agronomy, glyphosate contributes to global food security by improving land efficiency and lowering the environmental footprint of food production.

“There is no scalable alternative right now,” says our expert. “Without glyphosate, prices go up, food waste goes up, and more land gets cleared to compensate for lost yield.”

What about Heavy Metals?

Heavy metals like lead, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury are naturally found in soil and water. Plants absorb them just as they absorb nutrients. This applies to conventional and organic crops alike.

You’ll find trace heavy metals in:

  • Root vegetables like sweet potatoes and carrots (especially the skin)
  • Leafy greens like spinach, kale, and chard
  • Grains, especially brown rice and oats
  • Seafood, like tuna and swordfish, which can be high in mercury

The problem isn’t the presence—it’s repeated, high-level exposure over time, like eating the same thing for lunch every day, or having the same vegetable for dinner 3 nights a week. This is especially true for young children.

How to Minimize Heavy Metal Exposure:

  • Eat a varied diet: Don’t rely on the same foods daily, especially high-risk ones like rice-based snacks, sweet potatoes, or leafy greens from the same source.
  • Peel root vegetables: The skins can concentrate heavy metals—especially important for baby food.
  • Rinse produce: Washing removes soil particles that may carry heavy metal dust. Adding some vinegar to the wash increases efficiency.
  • Limit certain fish: Mercury-heavy fish like swordfish and king mackerel should be eaten sparingly, especially by pregnant women and children.

“Our testing has evolved to detect incredibly small quantities,” our expert explains. “Now we know more about what’s in our food—but we also need to know how to interpret it.”

What are the FDA and EPA Doing?

While headlines often spark fear, it’s important to recognize the behind-the-scenes work being done to keep our food supply safe.

Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) play critical roles in protecting public health by monitoring, regulating, and reducing exposure to potentially harmful substances like heavy metals and pesticide residues.

Their efforts don’t just stop at setting limits—they’re advancing research, guiding manufacturers, and adjusting policies based on emerging science. Here’s how each agency is working to ensure transparency, safety, and continual improvement in the foods we eat every day.

FDA: Closer to Zero Program

This program targets lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in foods consumed by infants and children. Their strategy is to:

  • Set action levels (e.g. 10 parts per billion for lead in infant cereals)
  • Guide manufacturers to reformulate and reduce toxic element exposure
  • Continuously monitor, analyze, and revise safety thresholds

The FDA acknowledges that no amount of lead is safe for children—and they’re working across the industry to minimize it.

EPA: Pesticide Residue Oversight

The EPA’s most recent glyphosate review found:

  • No cancer risk at dietary exposure levels
  • Glyphosate is safe when used according to label instructions
  • Ongoing studies are evaluating glyphosate’s metabolites for future review

These programs ensure consumers aren’t left in the dark—they offer transparency, data, and science-backed policy updates.

Here’s What Emily Can Do

Emily is not alone in wanting to keep her kids safe. The good news is, staying informed and proactive doesn’t have to be overwhelming. One of the most effective things you can do is encourage variety in your family’s diet.

“People get into food ruts,” explains our expert. “And that’s where exposure builds. If you eat spinach, carrots, and brown rice every day, you’re not getting balance—you’re increasing your risk.”

Rotating your produce, trying different whole grains, and switching up your protein sources helps minimize the accumulation of any one type of contaminant. In short, dietary diversity is a powerful form of protection.

It’s also important to rinse all fruits and vegetables—yes, even the organic ones.

Pesticide residues and naturally occurring heavy metals can cling to soil dust on the surface of produce. Washing them thoroughly helps reduce that exposure.

And when it comes to processed treats, like cookies or cereal bars, the key is moderation.

They’re meant to be enjoyed as occasional snacks, not everyday staples. They shouldn’t be vilified, but they also shouldn’t crowd out nutrient-dense whole foods.

Navigating the Noise: Trust Science, Not Clickbait

“Don’t get your science from TikTok,” our expert says bluntly.

Instead, rely on reputable, evidence-based sources like FDA and EPA reports, peer-reviewed research in journals such as Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Frontiers in Agronomy, and Food Chemistry, and organizations like the National Institutes of Health, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/WHO).

Be skeptical of dramatic headlines or social media posts that lack proper sourcing. Context matters—trace detection does not mean danger. And beware of comparisons between food safety limits and water safety standards, which have entirely different risk profiles and thresholds. Understanding that distinction is key to separating fear from fact.

Remember, here’s what we know:

  • Glyphosate is heavily regulated, essential for sustainable agriculture, and used in ways that significantly reduce environmental harm.
  • The trace amounts found in food—especially in Girl Scout Cookies—are nowhere near harmful.
  • Our testing capabilities are more sensitive than ever, but that doesn’t mean our food is more dangerous—it just means we know more about it.
  • The real focus should be on reducing overall processed food consumption and embracing a diet built on whole, varied, nutrient-dense foods.

Emily’s concern is valid. But panic isn’t the answer—context, science, and variety are.

Posted on

Transcript: Are Girl Scout Cookies Safe?

 

Click here to read the original post.

You know, when you’re scrolling online, maybe late at night, and a headline just grabs you. Well, lately, especially if you look forward to Girl Scout cookie season like I do. You might have seen these posts from February 2025.

The glyphosate claims and heavy metals, too. It definitely makes you pause before grabbing another cookie.

It absolutely does. And look, that’s a normal reaction when you hear pesticides, heavy metals, especially with food.

Yeah. Food for your family, right? Caution flags go up immediately. It’s understandable.

Okay. So, let’s really dig into that because that’s what we’re doing today. This deep dive. We’re looking past the, you know, the social media noise. Trying to get to the science of it.

Yes. What’s actually going on with these cookies? Our mission here is to sort the facts from the fear, understand the science, and figure out if there’s anything we genuinely need to worry about. Exactly. We’re not trying to dismiss anyone’s concerns, but we want to give it some real context, you know, based on the data we have.

Context, right? Science, not just scary headlines.

So, you can make up your own mind without hopefully needless panic.

Okay, first big one. Glyphosate. How on earth does that stuff get into a cookie? The idea someone’s adding it in is well, it’s weird, right? And that’s the first uh really critical point. It’s not an ingredient. Nobody is like one expert said, spring sprinkling glyphosate into cookie dough.

Instead, if it’s there at all, it’s in these tiny tiny trace amounts and it gets there indirectly through the farm ingredients.

Okay, indirectly. How? Break that down.

Well, there are basically three main ways this can happen. First is something called preharvest desiccation.

So maybe about 30% of farmers, give or take, might spray glyphosate on crops like wheat or oats right before harvest.

Why would they do that?

It helps everything dry down evenly. You get a more uniform crop, better yield, makes harvesting more efficient.

Okay. So, it’s used on the ingredients. What’s path number two?

Second is just um environmental spread. Think of it like pollen. Glyphosate can drift on the wind, get into water sources. So, even if one farm doesn’t use it, tiny amounts might just be present in the environment from nearby areas. It’s hard to avoid completely sometimes.

Okay. Like background noise almost. Yep. Makes sense. And the third way,

Cross contamination. Tiny microscopic residues might linger on milling equipment, maybe baking equipment, even after cleaning,
from processing other stuff before.

Exactly. Though, it’s also worth mentioning glyphosate isn’t super stable. It tends to break down, especially with heat, like, you know, baking.

Baking probably helps break it down. So, these are really small indirect routes, not someone dumping it in the mixer.

Correct. That feels a bit better already, doesn’t it?

It does. But then you see the numbers they throw around in those posts, parts per per million.

Yeah, sounds bad. Let’s talk about the actual amounts.

Yeah, the numbers. This is where context is absolutely everything. So, the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, they set something called an acceptable daily intake or ADI. That’s the amount they estimate you could consume every single day for your whole life and not expect any harm. For glyphosate, that ADI is 1.75 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.

Okay? 1.75 mg per kilogram. Let’s make that real. Say someone who weighs, I don’t know, 130 lbs. That’s about 70 kilos, right?

Right. 70 kg. So for that person, the daily acceptable intake would be, let’s see, 70* 1.75 about 103.25 milligrams of glyphosate per day.

Over 100 milligrams a day. Okay. Now, what did they find in the thin mints?

The test showed around. 28 parts per million. That sounds like a number, but let’s translate it. In a standard serving, say four cookies,
which is, let’s be honest, the starting point.

Ah, maybe. But in those four cookies, that translates to about 0.00896 milligrams of glyphosate total.

Okay. My brain hurts, but that sounds incredibly tiny compared to the 103 mg daily limit.

Exactly. So, let’s do the fun math. How many of those single cookies would that 70 kilo person need to eat in one day to hit their 103.25 mg limit?

Uh-oh. This is going to be big, isn’t it? works out to something like 46,116 thin mints.

46,000 in one day. Okay. Right. Nobody is eating 46,000 thin mints. I think even I have my limits.

Precisely. It puts the risk into perspective. And there’s another piece to this. Our testing technology is just ridiculously good now.

It’s better than it used to be.

Oh, way better. We used to measure in parts per million. Now we can often detect parts per trillion, even parts per quadrillion. Think of like an Olympic swimming pool being able to detect one single drop of dye in all that water. That’s the kind of sensitivity we’re talking about.

So, the headlines might pop up just because we can find these microscopic traces now, not because there’s suddenly more of it or it’s dangerous.
That’s a huge part of it. The sensitivity drives the detection, which can drive the headlines even if the actual health risk hasn’t changed or is negligible at those levels.

That analogy helps a lot. It’s not necessarily more stuff in the food. We just have sharper eyes scientifically speaking.

You got it. Okay. So, maybe we should switch slightly talk about why farmers use glyphosate in the first place. It’s easy to just focus on the scary headlines.

Good point. They aren’t just spraying it around for fun, presumably. What are the benefits?

Well, it actually plays a pretty big role in modern farming. A key thing is it allows for less tilling of the soil.

Less digging up the fields. Why is that good?

Tilling can lead to soil erosion, loss of top soil, big problems. By using glyphosate to handle weeds, farmers can use no till or reduce tail methods that helps preserve the soil, reduces erosion. And it can even mean lower greenhouse gas emissions from farming operations.

Yeah, that’s a side you don’t hear much about in the scary posts.

Not usually. No. Plus, it helps increase crop yields. Better weed control means more food grown on the same land. That’s vital for, you know, feeding everyone. Global food security.

So, it’s tied into bigger issues, efficiency, sustainability.

Absolutely. There was a review in a journal, Frontiers and Aron. me back in 2022 that really laid out its importance. And frankly, as the expert we looked at said, there isn’t really a scalable alternative right now that does the same job with the same benefits, especially the reduced tilling part.

So, if we just banned it, we’d likely see higher food prices, probably more food waste from lower yields, maybe needing to clear more land for farming. It’s complicated.

Definitely more complex than just weed killer bad.

Okay. What about the other thing mentioned, heavy metals, right? Heavy metals: lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury. This is a bit different. These are naturally occurring elements.

Natural. So, not from pesticides or farming chemicals.

Mostly not. No, they’re just in the soil in the water. Plants absorb them as they grow, just like they absorb nutrients. And this happens whether the crop is grown conventionally or organically.

Oh, interesting. So, organic doesn’t automatically mean no heavy metals.

Correct. You find trace amounts in lots of common foods, root vegetables like carrots, sweet potatoes, especially in the skin, leafy Greens like spinach, grains, brown rice, and oats can sometimes pick up arsenic from the soil.

Wow. Okay. Even seafood, right? Mercury.

Yep. Certain fish like tuna, swordfish can accumulate mercury from the water. It’s pretty widespread in trace amounts.

So, if it’s natural and in lots of foods, when does it become a concern? Is it the amount?

It’s about the amount and the frequency. The real concern is repeated highle exposure over a long time consistently. eating large amounts of foods that happen to be higher in a specific metal. And this is especially important for little kids. Their bodies are still developing. They’re more sensitive.

So again, it’s not about the occasional cookie setting off alarm bells.

Not usually. No, it’s the overall dietary pattern. And there are things you can do to minimize exposure.

Like what what’s practical?

The biggest thing is eating a varied diet. Don’t eat the exact same things every single day. Mix it up. Rotate your foods.

Makes sense. Reduces the chance of getting too much of any one thing.

Exactly. Also, peeling root vegetables, especially if you’re making baby food, can help since metals sometimes concentrate in the skin.

Okay, peeling carrots and potatoes. Easy enough.

Rinsing all your produce while even organic helps wash off any lingering soil which might contain metals. A little vinegar in the water can help too. And then, yeah, limiting those high mercury fish, particularly for pregnant women and young children. Standard advice there.

These are all pretty sensible things. And again, our fancy testing plays a role here, too, right? Right. Finding these natural traces.

Totally like the experts said, we can just see so much more now. We have more information than ever. The trick is interpreting it correctly. Finding a trace amount isn’t the same as finding a dangerous amount.

Context. Again, it always comes back to context. Are the regulators like watching this stuff? FDA, EPA.

Oh yeah, definitely. Both the FDA and EPA are heavily involved. The FDA has this program called Closer to Zero.

Closer to zero for what?

Specifically targeting lead. arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in foods for babies and young kids. They set action levels like for lead in infant cereal, it’s 10 parts per billion. Okay?

They guide manufacturers on how to reduce levels, then monitor foods, and the FDA is clear. There’s really no safe level of lead for kids. So, the goal is always to get it as low as possible, push it closer to zero.

That’s good to know they’re actively working on it for the most vulnerable group. Yeah. What about the EPA side for pesticides like glyphosate?

The EPA regulates pesticides. Their latest big review on glyphosate concluded it doesn’t pose a cancer risk from dietary exposure at the levels we see. They say it’s safe when used correctly following the label and they keep studying it including its breakdown products the metabolites. So these agencies provide oversight data updates. It’s an ongoing process, right? It’s not static. Science evolves.

Okay, so let’s pull this all together for the listener. What are the practical takeaways here? If you’re that person who saw the scary post, what should you do?

I think the biggest practical advice is is focus on variety for the whole family. Avoid getting stuck in a food rut eating the same few things constantly. Mix up the fruits, veggies, grains.

Exactly. Rinse your produce thoroughly. All of it. And yeah, processed treats like cookies. Enjoy them, sure, but in moderation. Part of a balanced diet, not the main course.

And maybe the best advice we heard, that quote.

Ah, yes. Don’t get your science from Tik Tok or, you know, unsourced social media posts in general.

Absolutely. Go to the credible sources, FDA reports, EPA assessments. Look for peer-reviewed studies and journals. The outline mentioned comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, frontiers in aronomy, food chemistry. Look at established health organizations, NIH, WH, EFSA in Europe.

Be skeptical of stuff without sources or that sounds super dramatic, right? And be careful comparing things like food safety limits to say drinking water standards. They’re set differently for different reasons. Apples and oranges sometimes.

Okay, so let’s try try to summarize the absolute key points.

Okay. One, glyphosate is regulated. It plays a role in modern farming and the trace levels found in foods like these cookies are considered safe by regulatory bodies.

Two, we can test for really tiny amounts. Now, that doesn’t mean food is suddenly dangerous. It means we have more sensitive tools and more data. Context matters.

And three, the best strategy for overall food safety and health isn’t obsessing over trace amounts in one specific food. It’s focusing on a varied balanced diet rich in whole foods and moderating the processed stuff.

So for everyone listening, yeah, those concerns you felt totally valid starting point, but the answer seems to be context, science, and variety, not panic.
Well put. It’s about informed choices, not fear-based ones.

So enjoy a thin mint or several, just maybe not 46,000.

Probably a good guideline. Enjoy them in moderation as part of that bigger picture of a healthy, varied diet.

All right. And maybe a final thought to leave everyone with. Now that you’ve got this deeper understanding of the science and the regulation around this food scare, what other food topics might deserve the same kind of careful look beyond the headlines?

That’s a good question. Staying curious, staying critical. That’s always a healthy approach to what we eat.

Posted on

Avian Flu Drives Soaring Egg Prices

Let’s set the stage with a scene from a modern marriage:

Me:  Honey, your birthday is next week, and it’s a big one.  Let’s do something really, really special to celebrate.

My wife:  Sounds great!  What do you have in mind?

Me:  Well, I was thinking of taking you out and buying you the biggest omelet in the city. Three, four, maybe even five eggs.

My wife:  Really?  Are you sure we can afford it?

Me:  We’ll find the money.  And besides, I’ve been putting a few bucks aside every week for the past three months just for this.

My wife [eyes filling with tears]:  Oh, my dear, dear husband.  Do you love me that much?

Me:  Yes.  Yes, I do. 

That scene isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.  Eggs are one of the protein staples of the modern diet, with Americans eating about 23 dozen eggs each year. They have soared in price as a nasty strain of avian flu has led to the death of millions of hen layers and other birds across the United States and the rest of the world.

The most pernicious form of avian flu, known as H5N1, is devastating to affected birds.  Mortality rates can be as high as 90-100 percent. Even milder forms of the flu can lead to significantly reduced egg production. And with lower yields come reduced supplies and higher prices – per-dozen egg prices now at an average of $4.95…and anticipated to climb 20 percent higher as we move further into 2025.

As noted by www.moneynotmoney.com:

“The absolute price of eggs has increased by $1.54 (80.63%) in the last decade, and $2.61 (310.71%) since 1980.

Even when adjusting prices for inflation, egg prices are still higher than they were in 1980. And not just a bit more expensive, we are talking about a significant increase no matter how you look at it!”

How widespread is avian flu?

A form of avian flu, called highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), was noted by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) as far back as February 2022.  This particular H5N1 strain was first noted on March 25, 2024, and has been growing ever since.

Last December, USDA said that since 2022 the bird flu had been detected in more than 125 million birds across 569 counties in all 50 U.S. states, in both commercial and private facilities.

On January 23 of this year, USDA further noted that an additional 98 flocks had been infected in the past month alone, with another 15 million birds affected.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also point to the enormous effect of the disease – citing 1,572 reported outbreaks across 641 counties, with 159,307,978 affected in poultry flocks and aquatic birds.

The United Nations says the bird flu has caused the deaths of more than 300 million birds worldwide – involving not just laying chickens but ducks, geese and other kinds of birds as well.

Why are egg layers more at risk than broiler chickens?

The avian flu virus can afflict both egg layers (hens that lay eggs) and broilers (chicken produced for your dinner plate) produced for meat.  But so far, the disease has been most damaging to layers, since they live for much longer: a healthy laying hen will start to produce eggs at around 18 weeks old and, on average, five-to-six more years following.

USDA reported in January that avian flu HPAI has been detected in commercial broiler flocks in three states – Georgia, Maryland and Virginia.

Broilers also face rigorous testing by APHIS before they leave any farm and additional testing when processed.

The damage to broiler flocks so far has been small enough that supplies closely match demand – meaning minimal price effects. Broiler meat prices are up only about 1 percent from a year ago.

Avian flu’s migration beyond birds

To add to the complicated picture, the virus also can affect other animals.

Infection among 929 dairy cattle has been reported across 16 states, with more than three-quarters in California. Isolated and small numbers of infections have also been reported in cats, pigs and even an alpaca.

By any measure, it’s a devastating disease, with resulting concerns about not just the cost of eggs but also the risk to humans and other mammalian species.

Scientific American notes that CDC reports that 67 human cases of H5N1 have been confirmed, most involving mild symptoms. (One case involving the death of a patient with underlying health issues has been recorded in Louisiana.)

CDC notes that such cases involve direct contact between the human and an infected animal, including cows. Cows pass large amounts of the virus in their milk, but pasteurization has been shown to kill the virus.

Is it safe for us to consume eggs right now? Fear not.

As Good Housekeeping reported: “The risk of getting the H5N1 bird flu virus from eggs is minimal to none, and safe storage and cooking of eggs reduces any potential risk,” says Geeta Sood, M.D., ScM, assistant professor of medicine in the Johns Hopkins Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.

What does all this mean for egg prices?

We eat a lot of eggs. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) notes that per-capita egg consumption in the United States averaged 284 eggs in 2024.  Before the pandemic, the numbers were even higher – in the range of 294.

Swings in egg prices are nothing new.  But the most recent increases have been abnormally high, at a time when high food inflation has been a hot topic among consumers and politicians.

Both Joe Biden and now Donald Trump have made control of food price inflation a major goal. The devastating loss of layers – and the significant costs of decontamination, implementing stringent new safety precautions against disease and rebuilding flocks – are adding to the economic pressures facing producers across our food chain.

That’s a Lot of Eggs…

U.S. table egg production totaled 92.6 billion in 2022, a 3 percent decrease from 2021.  The U.S. had 308 million commercial laying hens at the end of 2022, down 4.5 percent from 2021. The daily rate of lay averaged 82 eggs per 100 layers in 2022. On average, each laying hen produces 300 eggs per year.

Meanwhile at the grocery store…

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that average egg prices in January increased a whopping 19.5 percent from December, rising to an average of $4.95. “This was the largest increase in the eggs index since June 2015 and it accounted for about two thirds of the total monthly food at home increase (in food inflation),” according to BLS.

A local supermarket worker described the retail situation in simple terms: “Eggs come in on Friday’s truck.  By Monday, they are pretty much gone.”

But buying that dozen eggs at the supermarket is only one way the avian flu is contributing to higher food costs.

Eggs are a key ingredient in many prepared foods and an extremely popular food eaten in restaurants, diners and other out-of-the-home dining. Higher egg prices inevitably are passed along in all these venues, adding to the poor consumer’s economic woes.

What’s being done about it?

Avian flu has generated extensive interest from farm to consumer, with a variety of responses.

Layer producers deal with the threat of avian flu with a carefully tiered series of steps worked out with federal and state authorities.  When the avian flu is detected, the first step is to quarantine the flock and any equipment that may be around the birds. The flock is then humanely euthanized.

The farm where diseased birds were found is thoroughly disinfected, and the entire farm tested for 21 days to confirm that it is free of the disease. The surrounding area also is monitored and tested for the disease.

The farm community has aggressively sought to get ahead of the disease with extensive prophylactic actions, careful monitoring and testing, and even the personally painful and economically difficult decision to eradicate entire flocks.

Media and industry communications also have sought to raise public understanding of the complex issue and the steps being taken to assure a safe food, in order to avoid over-reaction.

Scientists in various government agencies and the private sector continue to work on understanding the disease and effective methods to combat it. Some of the most aggressive efforts have been focused on development of an effective vaccine against avian flu. That’s not a new idea. But it’s proven to be less straight-forward than it might seem on the surface.

Various avian flu vaccines have been developed since the first avian flu outbreaks in Southeast Asia in 2001-02 and have been used in countries around the world, with mixed success.  For example, China and Egypt have used vaccines against the disease, although recurrent outbreaks still happen.

Research in the United States also has produced encouraging results, with one HPAI vaccine produced by Zoetis in February received conditional approval from USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB).

H5N1 & trade implications

But the widespread use of vaccines against the avian flu remains a highly contentious issue. The major reason: use of vaccines could trigger import restrictions for poultry among foreign customers.

Existing and long-standing trade agreements contain stringent requirements for what can and cannot be present in imported foods. Such requirements have been actively used around the world both as a food-safety precaution – and frankly, as a means of protecting national industries.

U.S. agriculture knows this phenomenon all too well.  Poultry industry leaders and politicians have been wary of rushing to vaccines, preferring to emphasize prophylactic measures instead.

Poultry is the most-consumed livestock product in the world.

The United States is the world’s largest producer and second-largest exporter of poultry meat. According to USDA data, U.S. broiler exports over the past decade have averaged 7.1 billion pounds per year. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) estimates the three-year average of poultry meat and products at $5.66 billion.

Egg exports, including both shell eggs and egg products, last year exceeded 234 million dozen. The three-year average of egg and egg-product exports from the United States is $741 million.  Farmers today need the income that comes from poultry and egg trade.

Statista notes that the United States imports about 15 million dozen eggs each year, compared to exports of almost 16 times that amount – and more compared to some other market analysis. Part of the disparity can be traced to simple matters of handling and consumer reaction. In the United States, eggs are carefully cleaned and refrigerated, while most of the rest of the world prefers to leave eggs unrefrigerated.

How long will this go on?

One of the oldest adages in economics (and especially the agricultural world) reads: “the cure for high prices is high prices.”

Egg prices are most likely to moderate when the layer industry has had time to adapt to an extraordinary set of challenges. New facilities must be built and existing ones cleaned, sanitized and modernized with the latest and best sanitary equipment.

Aggressive and where possible better disease control practices must be implemented.  High egg prices perversely provide the economic incentives to prompt all those actions.

There also is the issue of the time needed to rebuild flocks.  Replacing lost layers will proceed when the remedial protective actions have been completed.  It makes no sense to invest in more animals if the proper precautions have not been taken. And once they are replaced, it will take months for the new birds to begin producing eggs.

Posted on

Red food dye: Toxic or tame?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

Announced on January 15, 2025, this ruling comes after decades of debate and advocacy, highlighting the complex interplay between scientific evidence, regulatory processes, and public opinion on health concerns.

Red Dye No.3, your days are numbered ...This decision is based on the Delaney Clause, a portion of the law from in the 1950s, which requires the FDA to ban any additive found to cause cancer in animals and humans. This is regardless of the relevance to human health at typical exposure levels.

However, some experts say the laws must evolve with current studies on the subject matter, which are more accurate than those conducted in the ’50s, when the law served mostly as a “catchall” for food safety.

But how much is really too much when it comes to human health?

Studies on Red Dye Toxicity

While we know too much of any one thing is bad for us, this development has sparked discussions about the scientific thresholds for determining food additive safety, the timeline for implementing such bans, and the broader implications for food manufacturers and consumers alike.

Several studies have shown the potential toxicity of red dyes, particularly Red Dye No. 3. Here’s an overview of the key findings and regulatory actions:

  • Cancer in Lab Animals: Studies conducted over 30 years ago found that Red Dye No. 3 caused cancer in male rats when administered at high doses. This was the primary basis for regulatory action.
  • DNA Damage: A 2001 study published in Toxicological Sciences showed that Red Dye No. 40 (Allura Red) induced DNA damage in mice, particularly in their colon epithelium cells.
  • Recent Research: A 2023 study in mice indicated that Red Dye No. 40 might cause DNA damage and affect the microbiome, potentially contributing to colonic inflammation.

As you can see from the above-noted studies, research on red dye toxicity has primarily focused on animal models, with thresholds for damage in humans remaining unknown.

Scientific Thresholds and Human Cancer Risk

In 1969, Red Dye No. 3 was approved for use in food and ingested drugs. FDA declined to permit Red Dye No. 3 for use in cosmetics and topical drugs in 1990 based on the aforementioned studies showing cancer development in male rats exposed to high levels of the dye. The FDA’s 1990 decision did not revoke the approval for food and ingested drugs.

However, there is no evidence that  Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in humans. 

According to Market Watch and their interview with Scott Keatley, a registered dietitian and co-owner of Keatley Medical Nutrition Therapy, a practice in New York City:

Keatley found that for a 50-pound child, that would equate to 12 red gummy bears, or 6 pieces of red licorice, or half a cup of red gelatin dessert EVERY day. 

For a 150-pound adult, the math would work out to triple those amounts — or about 36 red gummy bears per day…that’s a lot of candy. 

Furthermore, the FDA has stated in their press release on the ban that the mechanism by which Red Dye No. 3 causes cancer in male rats “does not occur in humans…studies in other animals and in humans did not show these effects”.

The FDA also maintains that “claims that the use of FD&C Red No. 3 in food and in ingested drugs puts people at risk are not supported by the available scientific information”.

While we know the evidence for human cancer risk is inconclusive, the Delaney Clause meant that the FDA was required to take action against Red Dye No. 3.

Research on other synthetic food dyes, particularly Red Dye No. 40, is ongoing, with some studies suggesting potential health concerns that warrant further investigation.

Will this be a domino effect?

While no immediate bans have been announced, there are indications that other additives might face similar scrutiny in the near future. Watchdog groups are already calling attention to other potentially harmful additives. A health watchdog has warned about three other food additives linked to cancer following the Red Dye No. 3 ban.

The FDA’s decision to act on Red Dye No. 3 after decades of inaction may signal a shift towards more proactive regulation of food additives.

Consumer advocacy groups, emboldened by the success with Red Dye No. 3, may increase pressure on the FDA to review other controversial additives. For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which petitioned for the Red Dye No. 3 ban, may target other additives.

This ban aligns the U.S. more closely with regulations in the European Union, which previously banned Red Dye No. 8, except for cocktail cherries, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and toothpaste. Additional regulations exist in Australia and New Zealand, where many additives are already restricted. This international context may influence future FDA decisions on other additives.

While it’s uncertain which specific additives might be banned next (e.g., Red Dye No. 40), the Red Dye No. 3 decision has likely opened the door for increased scrutiny of food additives with longstanding safety concerns or those already restricted in other countries.

The food industry and consumers should be prepared for potential changes in the coming years as the FDA and advocacy groups continue to evaluate the safety of various food additives.

How will this ban impact food manufacturers?

Many food manufacturers are already exploring alternative natural color additives without impacting the flavor.

There are many substitutes for Red Dye No. 3, such as beet juice, purple sweet potato extract, red cabbage extract, carmine, and pomegranate juice. These natural substitutes align with growing consumer preferences for clean-label ingredients. After all, many of us would rather consume pomegranate juice in Jell-o than red dye.

The state of California has already passed its own ban of Red Dye No. 3 that goes into effective January 1, 2027, so many companies are already preparing for this transition. But we are contending with a lot of items: approximately 3,000 items sold in the United States include Red Dye No. 3, such as baked good, candies, and strawberry meal replacement shakes.

Food manufacturers have until January 15, 2027, to reformulate their products, while drugmakers have until January 2028. Some manufacturers may wait closer to the deadline to implement these new ingredients into their production lines due to higher short-term costs.

Why is this issue the FDA’s focal point right now?

Here’s the deal: we know red dye is simply a color additive in food, is not a preservative or flavor mechanism and is not necessary for food products. We also know that we are not going to give our children 12 red gummy bears every day.

The real nutritional concern should be excess sugar, insufficient protein, and a diet high in sodium. Are children getting their daily requirement of fruits, vegetables, and fiber? A more relevant question for the FDA is: How can we help our nutritionally-deficient children have healthy diets?

Ultimately, the current push to ban red dye is as much about legal regulations as it is about nutrition. While there is no evidence to suggest that red dye causes cancer in humans, the FDA is required to follow the Delaney Clause.

Posted on

Can a Small Food Label be a Big Deal?

Click Play to listen to our generated podcast. Click on links for transcript and our full podcast library. 

 

Imagine strolling down the supermarket aisle, your eyes drawn to a small, simple, black-and-white box on the front of food packages. This isn’t just another marketing gimmick – it’s the FDA’s latest weapon in the battle against chronic diseases.

The proposed “Nutrition Info box” is set to transform how Americans shop for food, offering a quick “Low,” “Med,” or “High” snapshot of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars content. And it has been a long time coming.

A nutritional revolution on your grocery shelves

Slated for potential implementation between 2029-2030, front-of-package (FOP) label regulations will fundamentally transform how consumers interact with food packaging, potentially impacting food manufacturers’ reformulation strategies and market positioning.

Driven by the alarming prevalence of chronic diseases and escalating healthcare costs, the FDA’s initiative goes beyond mere labeling—it’s a strategic intervention aimed at empowering consumers to make more informed dietary choices.

While the EU and Chile have been using a colorful traffic light system, the FDA is taking a more subtle approach. The proposed design aims to provide clear information without the potential alarm of red warning signs. It’s like comparing a minimalist art piece to a vibrant street mural – both eye-catching, but with different emotional impacts.

Why now? The chronic disease crisis

With 60% of Americans battling at least one chronic disease and healthcare costs soaring to $4.5 trillion annually, the FDA is pulling out all the stops. This label isn’t just about information – it’s a public health intervention disguised as packaging design. As FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf puts it, “It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go”.

This labeling revolution could spark a domino effect in the food industry. Manufacturers might scramble to reformulate products, turning the supermarket into a battlefield of nutritional one-upmanship. It’s like giving consumers X-ray vision for nutrition, potentially transforming the food landscape one package at a time.

In the end, this small label could be the catalyst for a healthier America, proving that sometimes, the biggest changes come in the smallest packages.

When will we see these in effect?

The FDA’s proposed rule on FOP nutrition labeling is currently open for public comments until May 16, 2025. After this period, the FDA will review the comments and potentially make revisions before issuing a final rule, which can take several years. Once finalized, large companies with $10MM+ in food sales have 3 years to implement; small companies have 4 years.

The FOP labeling requirement will impact most food manufacturers producing packaged foods that currently bear a Nutrition Facts label.

However, there are some exemptions, including:

  • Foods in packages with a total surface area of less than 12 square inches
  • Packages marketed as gifts containing a variety or assortment of foods
  • Unit containers in multiunit retail food packages

Assuming the rule is finalized without significant delays, consumers might start seeing the new FOP labels on shelves as early as 2029 for products from large manufacturers, and 2030 for products from smaller companies. However, this timeline could vary depending on the duration of the FDA’s review process and any potential challenges to the rule.

What are the economic impacts to the food industry?

Here are some of the potential economic impacts on the food industry:

  • Reformulation Costs: Many food manufacturers are likely to reformulate their products to meet new “healthy” criteria. This could lead to substantial upfront research and development expenses until economies of scale are achieved
  • Price Changes: There’s evidence of a 5.5% increase in prices of unlabeled products relative to labeled ones due to regulations. This suggests that companies may adjust pricing strategies to offset costs or capitalize on perceived healthier options.
  • Demand Shifts: Products receiving labels, especially those previously perceived as healthy, could experience up to a 40% decrease in demand. This may lead to revenue losses for some manufacturers and gains for others producing healthier alternatives.
  • Compliance Costs: The industry will face expenses related to implementing new labeling requirements, including design changes and printing costs.
  • Potential Cost Savings for U.S.: Despite initial costs, the regulations could lead to long-term healthcare and societal cost savings. The US calorie menu labeling law alone is estimated to result in net lifetime savings of $10.42 billion from a healthcare perspective and $12.71 billion from a societal perspective.
  • Market Differentiation: Some companies may benefit from increased product differentiation, potentially allowing for premium pricing of healthier options.
  • Industry-wide Impact: Experts estimate that food fraud, which stricter labeling aims to combat, affects 1% of the global food industry at a cost of about $10-$15 billion annually. New regulations could help reduce these losses.

Overall, while there are significant upfront costs for the food industry, the long-term economic impacts could be positive, especially when considering broader societal benefits and potential market opportunities for healthier products.

How does this new label compare to other countries?

The new FOP labeling regulations differ from those implemented in other countries in several key aspects:

Comparison with European Union (EU)

  • Approach: The US proposes a black-and-white design, while the EU uses a colorful traffic light system.
  • Additive labeling: The EU assigns E-numbers to additives, while the US requires full names on labels.
  • Nutrient disclosure: US labels tend to provide more detailed nutrient information compared to EU labels.

Comparison with Chile and Americas

  • Stringency: The proposed US regulations are less stringent compared to Chile’s and the Pan American Health Organization’s (PAHO) criteria.
  • Coverage: Under current proposals, 54.4% of packaged products in the US would require FOP labels, compared to 68.4% in Chile and 81.3% under PAHO criteria.
  • Ultra-processed products (UPPs): The US criteria would allow 33.4% of UPPs to avoid FOP labeling, compared to 18.4% in Chile and only 2.3% under PAHO standards.

Global Trends

  • Adoption: Over 40 countries have implemented easy-to-understand FOP nutrition labeling systems. This has led to reduced consumer dietary intake of selected labelled nutrients.
  • Variety: Different countries use various systems, such as “excess sugar” stop signs in Mexico, the Nutri-Score system in France, and Health Star Ratings in New Zealand.

While the US is moving towards more transparent FOP labeling, its proposed regulations appear to be less stringent than those in some other countries, particularly in identifying ultra-processed products. The approach differs from the EU’s color-coded system and the more comprehensive labeling requirements seen in countries like Chile.

Posted on

Fighting Fear of Our Food System

SPOILER ALERT: Your food is safe. We have one of the safest food systems in the world. In fact, we’re here updating and reposting this from several years ago with the continued, glowing outlook of our system.

Unfortunately, the news cycle hasn’t changed much either…some might say it’s gotten worse.  Just turn on any screen and get ready for a barrage of fear.  It’s nearly impossible to escape the constant avalanche of reports targeting a threat or cause for worry.

And if I don’t already fear the food, some people want me to feel guilty for not just what I eat, but almost for even eating at all.  

My So-Called Wrongdoings

Think I’m crazy?  Sit down in your local diner and order a meal.  Let’s go for comfort food: meatloaf, mac and cheese, and a side salad with Thousand Island dressing.  Oh, and some apple pie with ice cream for dessert.  A glass of ice water with lemon, and maybe a nice cup of really good coffee to cap things off.

So what have I just done here?  How does this food get me into a maze of controversies about human, animal and environmental welfare? 

Let’s look at it piece by piece, or bite by bite, if you prefer.

Let’s start with the meatloaf…

It’s hamburger, plus some breadcrumbs, some spices and maybe a few chunks of peppers or mushrooms.  Maybe I sprinkle some salt and pepper on it, and a touch of ketchup, just for flavor.

  • Should I be eating beef at all? It takes lots of water and feed grains to bring an animal to market.  It gave off a lot of greenhouse gas while it fattened up, too.  It may have been finished off for market confined in a feedlot, and maybe injected with antibiotics at some point.  It certainly didn’t enjoy the trip to the processing plant.  Dietitians tell me too much red meat will clog my arteries, or at least contribute to those extra pounds I seem to carry these days. And if I eat it more than five days a week, I might get Alzheimer’s.
  • I probably didn’t need all that salt, either. It could kick up my blood pressure.
  • And what was in those breadcrumbs? Were they from stale old bread they had lying around?  Was it made from GMO crops?  If so, should I worry?
  • What about those peppers and mushrooms? How do I know they were grown responsibly, without taking up too much water, or using too much fertilizer and pesticides?  And were the people who picked them paid fairly and treated well?
  • Did they add an egg to the meatloaf? My mom used to do that. But if they did, was that egg from a happy, free-range chicken? Was it fed antibiotics? How much cholesterol does the egg add?
  • Ketchup…organic tomatoes, or mass-produced in a hothouse or grown hydroponically in an indoor farm somewhere?  Picked by whom?  Were they paid fairly?  And using how much added sugar? What is ascorbic acid, or citric acid anyway, and why in the world is it in there?

Now I’m afraid to even think about the mac & cheese…

  • What grain did they use to make the macaroni? Is it also a GMO crop?
  • Is the cheese really cheese? What kinds of preservatives, colorings, flavorings and anti-coagulants are squirming around in there, just waiting for me to eat them up?

As for the salad…

  • Where in the heck did this Romaine lettuce come from? Should I worry about food poisoning?
  • And what about the tomato, and the cucumber, and that reddish stuff that looks like an onion…is it local? How did it get here?  How many hands have actually touched the food I’m about to eat?  Who checked to make sure it’s clean, fresh and safe?
  • As for the dressing, did it come out of a bottle or a 20-gallon vat somewhere?

You know, I used to love my apple pie…

Now I’m feeling a little squeamish about it!

  • Who is this mysterious Mrs. Smith, and just where is this bucolic Pepperidge Farm, anyway? How do I know it wasn’t some team of minimum-wage newbies on an assembly line churning out my mass-produced pie?
  • Just where did these apples come from?  How much sugar is in there?  Or is it high fructose corn syrup?  Or maybe some alternative sweetener made from the leaves of a plant the Aztecs once used to smoke to get high?  Is the crust an actual food, or maybe some form of biodegradable, flavor-enhanced cellulose?
  • The ice cream isn’t really helping, either. Did the cows who supplied the milk have drugs used on them to stimulate more milk production?  Were they treated humanely?  How was the milk handled?  How much sugar went into the mix in making this?  How much artificial flavor?

Maybe a sip of water will help calm me down…

But wait a minute.

  • Did this come out of the tap, or from a bottle? What kind of pipes are in the city’s water system?  Who checks the water for contamination, and for what kind, and when? And are there microplastics?  Will I get cancer from drinking this water?
  • And what about that slice of lemon? Did anybody wash that lemon before they cut it up?  How long has it been lying around waiting to be plunked into somebody’s water, or iced tea, or finger bowl?  Where did it come from, anyway?

Let’s just forget about the coffee…and the sugar or artificial sweetener I put in it, or the milk.  I no longer care where the coffee beans came from, or who picked them, or much of anything else.  I certainly don’t care if the milk came from a cow or an almond.  I don’t even want to think about how much energy was needed to cook all this, or to heat the hot water they will use to wash up.

Wasteful Worries

Now my appetite is pretty much gone, thanks to all this thinking I’ve been doing.  So what do I do with all this left-over food on the plate?

  • If I don’t do something with it, they will just scrape it off into the garbage and send it to the local landfill. It will decompose slowly, I suppose.  But while it does, it will generate still more greenhouse gas.  Food waste in landfills already accounts for 7 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.  My contribution here could pollute the water table, if the landfill isn’t up to spec.  Am I more responsible for global warming if I eat this food, or if I throw it out?
  • Maybe the diner will call the local food bank and make sure the left-overs go to good use – you know, for a needy person, or a soup kitchen, or something like that.

Or maybe I just stop eating.

Phew….I just woke up from my nightmare.

But this sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

However, this is just a superficial look at some of the issues that surround the food we eat these days.

Actually, there are a great many more than these to consider….real, serious issues that people in the food sector wrestle with every day in trying to satisfy the public demand for safe, sustainable food.

OK, Now Here’s the Good News…

Educating worried consumers on our food system is one of the big reasons why we created this blog, so you’re in luck.

People want to know more about our food system: where their food comes from, how it is produced, how it is delivered, how we keep it safe and make it as wholesome as possible, and more.  We all need to know, and, frankly, we should know.  And thankfully, farmers have a great story to tell.

There is no way to adequately describe the commitment, the resilience, the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of the men and women who produce, farm, ranch, and those who manufacture the food products, and those who prepare the food we need and want.

We look forward to continued innovation and advancement in our established food system. And what we hear is loud, clear and unequivocal faith in the future of food.

“This growing fear has the potential to sideline, deter, critical technologies that we already use, and derail technologies in the pipeline, that we already know how to achieve.”

– Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue

Never underestimate our farmers & food producers

When commitment, capability and capital converge combine with their oversight, look out. All things are possible — including food that people don’t fear, and a food system that doesn’t induce guilt.

If you want to learn more about how our food is grown, food safety, and food waste, take a look at these posts for more information. We hope this collection of posts puts your mind at ease so you can rightfully enjoy your food produced by some of the hardest-working people in the world:

Farming and production:

Food safety:

Food waste:

Government resources:

Maybe our food system isn’t perfect yet. We need all the intelligence and technologies possible to feed a growing population while regenerating the land.

We’re doing a better job today than we did yesterday, and we’ll do a better job tomorrow than we do today.

Indeed, it’s a great big world of possibilities — except maybe for a decent-tasting diet cola.

Posted on

Food Safety Best Practices

chicken and vegetables on skewers

Clean, Separate, Cook, and Chill

The Be Food Safe campaign was created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with the Partnership for Food Safety Education, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to raise awareness of the importance of safe food handling in American households. The campaign recommends just four simple steps: clean, separate, cook and chill.

Wash Your Hands, Wash Your Utensils

  • Wash your hands with water and soap for at least 20 seconds before and after handling food. Wash between your fingers and fingernails as well.
  • Use gloves to handle food if you have a cut or infection.
  • Wash your cutting boards, dishes, utensils, and countertops with hot soapy water after preparing each food item, especially after using them for cutting raw meat, poultry, and seafood.
  • Consider using paper towels to clean up kitchen surfaces. If you use cloth towels, launder them often in the hot cycle. Put sponges in the microwave for sixty seconds or more to kill bacteria

Maintaining cutting boards: If not properly maintained, cutting boards can harbor harmful bacteria. Cutting boards with nonporous surfaces, such as plastic, marble, glass, or pyro-ceramic, are easier to clean and can hold on to fewer bacteria. The USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline recommends consumers use wood or a nonporous surface for cutting raw meat and poultry.

Which foods should you clean before eating?

MEAT: DO NOT WASH
Washing raw poultry, beef, pork, lamb, or veal before cooking it is NOT recommended by the FDA, USDA, and food safety experts. When meat is washed, water may splash harmful bacteria present on the raw meat spreading them to surrounding surfaces, including the clothes of the person washing the meat. Since cooking meat to the appropriate temperature kills disease-causing bacteria, washing meats prior to cooking is not necessary.

EGGS: DO NOT WASH
Eggs contain a natural coating that prevents bacteria from permeating the shell.  And during commercial egg production, eggs are washed and sprayed with edible mineral oil to protect them from bacterial contamination. Washing eggs at home will remove these protective coatings and makes the eggs more susceptible to contamination.

FRUITS & VEGGIES: WASH
Raw fruits and vegetables can carry harmful bacteria, be sure to wash them under running tap water to remove any lingering dirt. When preparing fruits and vegetables, remove any damaged or bruised areas. These are prime spots for bacteria to thrive. In some cases, like with berries, it is best to not wash the produce until you are ready to eat them so they so they stay fresh.

Cook: Use a thermometer— even on your hamburger on the grill! Cooking food to a high enough temperature destroys harmful bacteria. To make sure food is heated to the appropriate internal temperature, the use of a food thermometer is highly recommended. You cannot see, smell, or taste bacteria that cause foodborne illness so it is imperative that you use a thermometer to determine when food is safe to eat.

Chill: Refrigeration is essential. The “danger zone,” where bacteria grow most rapidly, is the range of temperatures between 40 °F and 140°F.  Within this temperature range, bacteria can double in number in as little as 20 minutes. Keeping your food out of the “danger zone” is imperative to food safety in the kitchen.

Storage: USDA has developed guidelines recommending safe time limits for keeping refrigerated foods from becoming dangerous to eat. (Maximum freezing times are recommended for quality purposes only.)

For additional information on safely shopping for food, transporting food and serving food, check out the USDA’s Kitchen Companion: Your Safe Food Handbook.

Posted on

D2D in the Kitchen: Prepping a Clean Turkey

Whether you dry-brine, deep-fry or lather the bird in white wine and butter, the preliminary steps of turkey preparation are the same. One of the biggest issues facing poultry prep is the spread of pathogens like Campylobacter and Salmonella that can cause foodborne illnesses.

Here’s how you keep yourself and your fellow diners safe by dressing and cooking your turkey properly…

Thawing a Frozen Turkey

If you are buying a frozen turkey, the meat needs to be completely thawed before cooking it— otherwise, you might not cook it thoroughly. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), when the turkey begins to defrost, any bacteria present before being frozen can continue to grow again.

Therefore, the defrosting process must be done correctly. It takes approximately 24 hours to thaw roughly 5 lbs of turkey meat. The average size turkey purchased for Thanksgiving is 15 lbs, so allow 3 days for your bird to completely thaw in the refrigerator.

Once the turkey is thawed, cook it within two days. Failing to cook the meat within this timeframe may result in foodborne illness if harmful pathogens are present and the meat is not cooked thoroughly.

Prepping a Fresh Turkey

You have two days from the purchase of a fresh turkey to get that bird in the oven! You may feel inclined to wash the meat before you begin your seasoning preparations. Resist the urge!

Be sure to wash your hands and any utensils or plates that came into contact with the raw meat as these can serve as a source of cross-contamination.

Using platters interchangeably is never a good idea as this can allow for the transfer of pathogenic bacteria from the poultry to other dishes. So, after the turkey is in the oven, make sure to thoroughly clean your counters before moving on to the side dishes!

“Washing raw meat and poultry can cause bacteria to splash and spread up to three feet away. Cooking (baking, broiling, frying, or grilling) meat and poultry to the right temperature kills any bacteria that may be present, so washing meat and poultry is not necessary.”

–  United States Department of Agriculture

Cutting boards with nonporous surfaces, such as plastic, marble, glass, or ceramic, are easier than wood to clean. The USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline recommends consumers use a nonporous surface for cutting raw meat and poultry.

Temperature = 165°F

It doesn’t matter if you started with a fresh or frozen turkey, and, even if the turkey looks perfectly cooked with a crisp brown exterior, the inside of the meat must reach 165 degrees Fahrenheit before it is safe for consumption.

To properly check the temperature of the meat, you want to make sure to use a thermometer in three separate places. First, check the breast (the thickest part of the bird). If this has reached 165° you then want to check the thighs and the wings to make sure they are the same temperature.

The leftovers

Thanksgiving almost always means great leftovers through the weekend, right? Only if you store your meat properly! You want to have your leftovers refrigerated within two hours. If properly refrigerated, your leftover turkey meat will last for 3-4 days. That means four days of Thanksgiving sandwiches. Yum!