FOOD NEWS

FOR CONSUMERS

Summer 1987 Vol. 4, No. 2

Contents of this magazine are intended for re-use. No permission is necessary.

This magazine is published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Administrator

Donald L. Houston

Director, Information and Legislative Affairs

Nancy Robinson

Chief, Information Branch

Karen Stuck

Editor

Mary Ann Parmley (202) 447-9113

Production

Maxine Grant

Marketing

Laura Fox

Art Director

Deborah Taylor

Cover Illustration

Richard Thompson

Photography

Yuen-Gi Yee Lester Shepard

Food for News Consumers is pub- lished four times a year. Subscription price is $9-50 (domestic) or $1 1.90 (foreign) per year. Send subscription orders tO: Superintendent of Docu- ments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Send comments and inquiries tO: Editor, Food News for Consumers. FSIS/ILA, Room 1160 South, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. Telephone: (202) 447-9113.

Ask the Consumer Advisor

Dear Consumer Advisor:

I'm trying to cut down on the cholesterol in my diet. What is USDA doing to help people hke me?

Dear Reader:

You're right to be concerned about cholesterol in your diet. In fact, avoiding a diet high in fat, satu- rated fat, and cholesterol is one of the seven major dietary guidehnes recently issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Lower- ing your blood cholesterol level is a good way to help lower your chances of having a heart attack.

We at USDA are committed to helping consumers control cholesterol intake. We're encouraging the addition of cholesterol information on labels for meat and poultry — products under our jurisdiction. We are also working with industry to develop new food items that are lower in fat and cholesterol.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees food items other than meat and poultry, recently proposed some rules on cholesterol labeling. We are working with them as they put these regulations into final form. As has always been our pohcy, we will closely follow the new FDA rules on labeling, since it's good to have consistent labehng requirements for all food.

One of our concerns about cholesterol information on labels is the health claims that may result. When is a claim accurate and fair? That's a question a group of policymakers — I'm part of this group— is looking into. Health information is useful to consumers, but only if it's not misleading.

We will continue to work to further educate consumers on the relationship between reducing cholesterol in the diet and health. Also, we will meet regularly with representatives from various pubhc health professional and consumer groups to coordinate information efforts. It's important that the message people hear from all trusted sources is consistent.

Sincerely,

ANN COLLINS CHADWICK, Director Office of the Consumer Advisor Phone: (202) 382-9681

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS

CONTENTS

Consumer Education

Hotline Calling— Clearing Up Those Food Handling Myths

Just Because Aunt Molly did it that way doesn't

mean it's right or safe p.4

Food Safety

The Housefly and Food— A Dirty Story but Someone

Had to TeU It

Learn to protect yourself against the insect that carries much of the world's communicable disease p.6

Special Features

Summer Recipes "Sizzle" With Food Safety Information We just thought of it— Why not write food safety into recipes? p.8

Biotech— What's on the Horizon for Meat and Poultry? Farmers, ranchers, consumers and certainly the pharmaceutical industry will profit from genetic engineering p. 10

Hea/tfi and Nutrition

Our fun summer quiz: What Are Americans Eating?

Rate Yourself as a Trend-spotter p. 12

News Wires

No More Secrets in Sulfite LabeUng p. 13

Listeria Linked to Raw Vegetables p. 13

Processed Orange Juice May Soon Taste

"Fresh-Squeezed" p. 14

The Children's Page

Read Any Good Thermometers Lately?

Your child or class can learn to read a fever

thermometer, check the roast for doneness and

make sure the refrigerator is functioning safely p. 14

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

Consumer Education

Hotline Calling- Clearing up Those Food "Myths"

levels in the 8 to 10 hours the food would stand at room temperature be- fore the oven automatically starts cook- ing. Since perishable products shouldn't remain at room temperature over 2 hours, use the time bake feature for these foods only when you can put them in the oven within that safe period.

Food handling practices are often ingrained in family tradition. One isn't quite sure how they got started or why — that's just the way to do it. New addi- tives and appliances also inspire new myths. Our USDA hotline home econ- omists know every day will bring a vari- ety of "myth" calls. It could be that mom swears by cooling her casserole on the counter, or the neighbor is sure there are worms in hotdogs. It will help a lot, we think, to clear up some of these tales we hear on the hotline, 800-535-4555.

Q; My new oven has a time-bake feature. I can put pork chops in before work in the morning and the oven will turn on at 4 p.m. to cook the chops by the time I get home at 5 p.m. Isn't this great?

A: while in theory this may seem to be a good way to have a hot dinner waiting when you arrive home, it could be very dangerous. Why? Because bac- teria in raw meat and poultry products can easily multiply to disease-causing

Q: I read a recipe for preparing turkey that called for cooking the bird at 250° F for 12 hours. Sounds like a great way to get tender meat, but is it safe?

A: Many callers hope they can save themselves from an early awakening on a special holiday by cooking the turkey overnight at a low temperature. This method is not recommended.

Because of the low oven temperature and the large volume of a turkey — especially with stuffing, your food might take over 4 hours to reach a high enough temperature to destroy bacteria. Therfore it could be unsafe to eat.

The quality of the meat might suffer, too, since during prolonged cooking some areas would tend to become dry.

In short, we don't recommend cook- ing meat or poultry at oven tempera- tures below 325° F

Qr Lately, every time I prepare chicken thighs or legs, the area near the bone stays dark red. I know I've cooked it long enough. Why isn't the meat done?

A: Very hkely the meat is done. The color difference you're seeing may be due to the fact that chickens are now marketed at seven to nine weeks of age. In these young chickens, the bones are porous and cooking can draw out red pigment from the bone marrow. This stains the flesh. The positive side is that this probably means you have a more tender chicken.

Q: I completely thawed a beef roast in the refrigerator, then was invited out to dinner. Have I wasted my roast now that I won't have time to cook it for sev- eral days?

A: No. Your roast can be saved. As long as food is handled properly, re- freezing is perfectly safe. Since your roast was thawed in the refrigerator, its's fine to pop it back in the freezer.

Be aware, though, that repeated freez- ing and thawing will lower the quahty of the food. When faced with the choice, however, of a slight quality loss due to refreezing or losing something completely to spoilage, it's wise to opt for refreezing.

Q: Every now and then I notice that ham slices have a greenish, iridescent look. Does that mean the ham is spoiled?

A: No. As long as it's just a greenish color and not mold caused by spoil- age, it is a perfectly safe and natural condition.

Like the "rainbow-effect" you see when oil spreads on a rain puddle, sometimes the natural fat and water in ham create a similar reaction. This often happens in roast beef slices too.

Q: I accidentaly left my scalloped potatoes in the oven all night. The oven was turned off and the dish was cov- ered. Won't reheating kill any bacteria that may have grown during that time?

A: Unfortunately it would not be safe to serve your casserole. While cooking

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

does kill most bacteria, there are food poisoners that are not destroyed by ordinary cooking. The combination of many hours and the warm atmosphere of the oven would provide an excellent growing ground for them.

Since you can't be sure of the bacte- rial level in the scalloped potatoes, it's best not to take a chance.

Qs Yuck! My neighbor just told me that an ingredient in hot dogs — erythorbate— is really earthworms. Is that true?

A: No. And the origin of this myth is impossible to trace! Actually, erythor- bate is a safe substance used in the curing of hotdogs and bacon. Chemi- cally, it's closely related to vitamin C.

So, it's a helpful food additive, has nothing whatever to do with worms, and is as safe as the vitamin C tablet you swallowed this morning.

Q; Please settle a family debate. I al- ways cool my lasagna casserole com- pletely on the counter before putting it into the refrigerator or freezer. My mother-in-law says that isn't safe. Who's right?

A: Your mother-in-law makes good food safety sense. The types of bacteria that can cause food poisoning grow best at room temperature and slightly above. The longer the casserole remains in this temperature danger zone, the more chance trouble has to "brew". Plus, you might forget about your casserole completely, as our callers often do.

Refrigerate any cooked product as quickly as possible. Where practical, divide the food into smaller, more sallow containers so it can cool quickly. The warm foods shouldn't affect the efficiency of your refrigerator

— Susan Templin

In A Stew Over Food Safety?

Call the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline for food safety facts.

800-535-4555 Washington, DC 447-3333 10:00 am-4:00 pm Eastern Time

Professional home economists will answer your questions about proper handling of meat and poultry, how to tell if it is safe to eat, and how to better understand meat and poultry labels.

A Dubllc service of this publication and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

The Housefly— A Dirty Story But Someone Had To Tell It

by Arthur Whitmore

The housefly is such a familiar sight that you swat one away from your sandwich without a second thought. But while the fly looks innocuous, it is one of our most dangerous enemies.

Bacteriologists tell us the housefly's global distribution and disease-carrying capability make it a real international superpower when it comes to transmit- ting human illness. From time im- memo- rial, says Dr. Bon- nie Rose, a USDA bacteri- ologist in Beltsville, Md., the fly has transmitted a wide variety of disease around the world. In the category of foodborne illness, these include dysentary, salmonellosis, typhoid fever, cholera and some parsitic diseases.

The reason is simple. "The common housefly and a number of its 'cousins' are famous for their fllthy habits," says Dr. Rose.

Born in Filth, A housefly begins its life in ftlth. An adult female seeks out fresh manure, garbage or fermenting vegetable waste in which to lay its eggs.

The female deposits a hundred or more eggs in one batch. She may lay 2 to 21 batches during her life, which could last a month or so.

Fly larvae — or maggots — hatch 1 or 2 days after the eggs are laid, and begin to feed on the material around them.

Within a week or two. the larvae

have grown, shed their skins twice and bur- rowed into the earth beneath the

garbage or manure. There they change into pupae, from which the adult flies emerge a few days later.

Spreading Disease. Adult houseflies begin their search for food within an hour or two after emerging from the pu- pal state. They are drawn by smell to human food and to garbage and feces.

A housefly eats using its proboscis— an elongated mouth organ which func- tions like a straw— to suck in liquified organic material. A fly can also eat solid food by regurgitating certain digestive juices— called vomitus— onto the solid food's surface, softening a portion of it. and then sucking it back through the proboscis.

As a housefly treks across waste or garbage in its search for food, it can pick up bacteria and other germs on its feet, the hairs of its legs and its probiscis. It can also ingest disease organisms and carry them in the digesive tract.

The fly can later deposit these organ- isms on human food, either from its feet, legs and mouth parts, or through its vomitus and feces.

Danger for Developing Nations.

The housefly's disease-transmitting ability makes it an extraordinary pub- lic health hazard for many developing nations.

In countries where open sewers and privies

are stiU common, houseflies and related flies

continually infect the human popula- tion with disease.

The flies feed or breed in human fe- ces, pick up disease organisms that have passed into the sewage from infected individuals, and then re-transmit those disease organisms to local water and food supplies. Thus, the flies sustain an ongoing cycle of infection.

According to the U.S Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, much sick- ness in developing areas is due to fly-borne bowel disease, as are a large number of deaths in children under two years of age.

Our Domestic Fly Problem, In the

United States today, disease transmis- sion by houseflies and related flies is limited in most areas by closed sewer systems and relatively good sanitary practices. Historically, though, we had our own problems.

In the horse-and-buggy era most Americans tolerated flies as an unavoid- able nuisance. Why? Well, they were vir- tually inescapable. Many people had privies in the backyard, relied on horses for transportation and kept livestock.

Fly breeding was so intense in manure that ordinances were finally passed in urban areas prohibiting the use of privies or the keeping of livestock inside city limits.

Conditions improved for a time when automobiles replaced horses on the street, but the migration of people from rural areas and other countries to U.S. cities in the 1920s and 30s soon created new problems.

As urban living quarters became in- creasingly crowded, environmental san- itation reached a low ebb. Refuse accu- mulated and the fly problem again became acute.

Insecticides were then introduced to control flies, and worked fairly well for some years. But, as the insects devel- oped resistance to the chemicals, it be- came increasingly obvious that sanita- tion and refuse control would remain the primary inhibitors.

Proper Refuse Disposal = Fewer Flies. It's now an axiom with public health workers that proper refuse and waste disposal are the best way to

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

control flies.

In the past, open dumps contributed significantly to fly problesm in the United States. Thanks to local and federal efforts over the past few de- cades, however, most U.S. towns and cities now dispose of refuse in sani- tary landfills.

At a properly managed sanitary landfill, refuse is compacted and then covered with 6 or more inches of earth daily. This makes it impossible for flies to feed or deposit larvae in the refuse.

Refuse should also be collected from homes and other premises at regular in- tervals to prevent fly larvae in garbage cans and bulk containers from migrat- ing out to pupate in the ground nearby. In general, garbage should be collected weekly from residences and daily from commercial establishments like hotels and restaurants.

Shoo Fly, Don't Bother

Me. You

can take steps to control house- flies in and around your home

—Use your garbage disposal for meat and vegetable waste. A

garbage compactor can help too. It pack- ages garbage so as to reduce the fly's access to it.

—Keep garbage and other refuse properly bagged and under cover. Place all garbage in plastic bags. Cans should have tight-fltting lids. Keep the cans and the area where they're stored dean and tidy. And don't let garbage stand until it ferments. Ask for frequent pickups.

—Disposal of animal excrement promptly and properly. Bury or oth- erwise dispose of dog, cat and other ani- mal feces. Don't leave pet food outside

uneaten either.

—Inspect your screens. Both window and door screens should flt tighdy. More tips: You need screens with at least 14 meshes per inch to stop house flies, and screen doors should swing out so flies resting on the door

Dive-bomber

The housefly can strafe food with contagion. One study showed a single fly carrying some 6 million bacteria on the outside and nearly 25 million inside its body.

proboscis

feet

leg hairs

don't auto- matically come in when you open the door.

—Spraying. To kill flies quickly inside the home, use a household aerosol insecticide spray. Buy a reputa- ble brand and foUow the directions carefufly. Avoid prolonged exposure to skin or breathing large amounts of the mist. Don't spray near an open flame, and take care not to contaminate food, dishes and food-preparation utensfls and surfaces with the insecticide.

—Preparing food. While flxing and serving meals, keep food covered or in the refrigerator. If you're serving out- doors, plastic wrap can protect your food. A screened-in porch or patio can also protect your meal from hungry flies.

If, despite your best efforts, you see a fly land on the potato salad, scoop out that portion and toss it in the trash.

When aU else fails, that's one sure way of saying 'buzz-off" to what the fly can do to you or your family's health.

—Arthur Whitmore, who holds aB.S. in science writing from the University of Maryland, has served for two years as a pubhc affairs speciahst in USD As news division.

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

Special Features

Summer Recipes "Sizzle" When You Add Food Safety Information

by Mary Ann Parmley and Dr. Georgia Stevens Neruda

Have you ever thought how helpful it would be to put safe food handling tips right into your recipes?

It's easily one of the best ways to get the message out, and people wanthebp. Over 70 percent of callers to USDA's Meat and Poultry HotUne ask for basic food handling advice.

Summer's the perfect time to start this new approach. As you know, food poisoning is a bigger problem in warm weather. And food poisoning is on the rise right now in general. Last year listeria, salmonella, even cholera claimed lives across the country in sepa- rate, serious outbreaks.

Sometimes these problems begin in plants and restaurants, but more often— public health research shows— dangerous food handling practices occur at home.

In an important 1985 study of Ore- gon home food preparers*, investigator Dr. Margy Woodburn found a high percentage of home "chefs" consistently making basic food preparation mistakes of the kind that could cause illness.

How do food preparers go wrong?

Generally speaking, people fixing food at home make mistakes of a very basic nature. Therefore, to help correct the situation, we've worked up Six Com- mandments of Basic Food Safety.

* Woodburn & VanDeRiet — Safe Food: Care Labeling for Perishable Foods, HOME ECONOMICS RESEARCH JOURNAL. Sept. 1985, Vol. 14, No. 1.

These rules are repeated in the recipes on the opposite page.

1. Keep it safe, refrigerate. Refrigerate foods you'U use quickly. Freeze raw meat or poultry you can't use in 1 or 2 days. Freezer should register 0° F; refrigerator, 40° F.

2. Don't thaw food on the kitchen counter. Bacteria multiply rapidly at room temperature.

3. Wash hands and utensils after contact with raw meat and poultry.

Wash cutting boards or other work surfaces too. Bacteria, often present on raw foods, can spread to other foods if you don't.

4. Never leave perishable food out over 2 hours.

5. Thoroughly cook raw meat, poul- try and fish. Most bacteria die at 160° F or above.

6. Freeze or refrigerate leftovers promptly. To re-use. reheat leftovers to bubbling— about 185° F. Previously cooked and stored food is highly vulnerable to spoilage and food poisoning.

How do recipe editors go wrong?

Here are a few "red flags" you can be alert for in evaluating recipes. For safe- ty's sake, please:

1. Don't recommend that people marinate meat or poultry on the coun- tertop. Since most marinating takes several hours, it should occur in a glass pan in the refrigerator.

2. Don't recommend partial cooking. If you bake a roast

minutes, put it on the counter to steep in spices for an hour, then put it back to finish baking, bacteria can grow while it's partially heated and sitting out. Worse, some bacteria and food poisons won't be killed by the 2nd baking.

3. Don't recommend low-temperature, long-time cooking. Recipes that for convenience or to "tenderize" call for baking perishable foods all night or all day at low temperatures can promote bacterial growth.

Crockpot cooking also requires care. Suggest people thaw food before putting it in the pot. They mustn't overload the pot either. Food above the cooking line won't be safe. Further, because of its de- lay in coming to safe, high heating tem- peratures, the crockpot isn't suitable for reheating leftovers.

4. Please do recommend safe food han- dling for picnics and barbeques. Sum- mer's fresh fruits and vegetables must be thoroughly washed— both to remove bacteria and pesticide residues— before use.

Raw meat, poultry and fish need careful handUng at the grill. It's best to use two separate paper plates for these items. One plate for the raw product and a fresh plate to take up the cooked version. That way. bacteria don't spread from raw to cooked. People should clean utensils and hands too after work- ing with raw meat.

poultry or fish and before working with vegetables or other foods.

Now that you have the basics, take a look at how our Meat and Poultry Hotline home economists have edited (words in green) these USDA recipes to add food safety advice.

And here's a final hint. Dr. Woodburn found that her Oregon study subjects responded to food safety advice best when it was short and to the point. That probably sums up the human re- sponse to instructions of any kind.

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

^ 2 £ B

^ O C n

! S 5- I

- ^ - 3

^1 §- § I- § s

M O ^ —

II I

O n

C M Ijj

o IS c 3 a

6» g >l M

E? n S"-

g rD O M

g 3 n D- W ^"

8^ ^-S

8 Q g 5" 3 S Q ^ S

^ n 3 ^

Is S 2.

3 "1.

0. JT

re o bt <

« <

<6 ft) n D 5 Ci. ?r n C OQ^OQ n

5 ^ § 5

g IT) S 3

^i.c^

3 f5 ^

n n n

OP ft

3 ^.

fP . fD

, , ft; — 3

Ul S ft)

3^S.g 3 c P 3

n 3

111 S S 1

: 5 &

S3 ?! 3-

> »

CO CD

Cr O C

€

o :3-

n Sr n

STB

^ s: S.S

3 OQ 3- ^ O ^ 3 rt

3 &) 3

o o

3- 3'

0 rD C ft)

3 i2 o

^ I

M O ft) s OQ

< 21 21

ft ft CD OQ hO

K o o

o o

f=r 3 3

M izi on CO

►T3 ^3

O O

3 3

^ Co

CD C

- a.

ft) o* O

a.?^3

R 2;

CQ Co

O) Cr O c

CD O)

CD Q) O

jg G n

S-S 3 2 « B* X

5 O OQ

« o. S cr f? c ELv^*

^ £L yi ST ^ :^ P

g 3 c

^ CD

CD ft*

3n t; ft,

£; M OQ

3 c? K '

a- !^ n m o ■ 3

- n 75

^3 < «

X 3 ^ ^

< CD _ K,

- B) 3 ST

^ fD ft

rt ~ !^ •

3 on 3. 11

^ ft OQ ft

O < fT>

< CD a

D CD

OQ ^ C

S*2, cr 5

a V 5

« ft)

r> c § 3-

NJ W I—

0 D. OQ ^ CD I fcr fD

^ S -^ «

o <

2 OQ

M f?

ST 3

fi)

n o o a

(/)

^ f?

fT 'o

C C fD

& i"

CD CQ CQ

CD CO

CD CQ CQ

Q- yi

g* n -I ;i rr

2 OQ 2

S^QQ Al ft) ft

CL ft CO c M

!L-1

5 c S 5 • « P -r

I-

rt- S. OQ OQ

0 1^ croQ

3 3- M OQ CD

M 22 ftT

«^ w ^ 2 • o —

fD S 3

CD ,2 f&i 3

OQ C

NO- - E 3 I

O fD CD "TS-

i-t n O fD

— OQ

Si c

o g

a m

ft)

n n C

c c ►ra

n f^ 3

3^ 3^ CD

CD CD

OQ 0

^ ?

I 2

B) M

IT!

O D-

O- 3

^ C 3 OQ

^ ^ 3 S

O CL S ^ — /n fD

co O ■o

Co CD —1

<; 3"

CQ cn

tt) Cr O

ft CD c

« 2 "

ST ^5 CD

K BJ M

^ ftT E2.

M fD <3

6» CD fD «■ 3

O w ^

n Q OQ CL 3^

fD OQ o "D CL

5Q fD

< ft) 3- 3

^8 ^1

3 ^

3 OQ O I < ^

BJ ^ OQ ft)

n r<

cr C/3 VJJ NJ

3" < i? n

5' 3

c/i 3^ C/3 3

&J X "T" !^

CL fD Ji;

o ^ ^ 2^

p fD 3

B) E. f^ OQ ft) on

3 3 ■

^CL

c »<:

BJ O

o c ji >—

3 3

fD CL N 5* H

3 CD CD ^ 3-

• -t 3 ^ BJ

§ 1

?i n

3 cr. S o

OQ OQ 3 N

^ Si c o o

cr rD

BJ OQ

;[ FOOD NEMfS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

The Biotech Revolution- WhaVs on the horizon for meat and poultry?

by Marjorie Davidson

Genetically engineered products to prevent and treat animal diseases will soon be commonplace. Cows that pro- duce 40% more milk and hogs that need 20% less feed to reach market weight may not be far behind as the biotech revolution hits the marketplace.

Genetic Engineering— changing the DNA (hereditary material) of a cell or of an animal in order to alter its ge- netic code— has been called the major scientific revolution of the century and is destined to leave a lasting impact on agriculture as we know it today.

A recent survey by the Food and Dmg Adminstration found that over 92 firms in the United States are rushing to capitalize on breakthroughs in vet- erinary genetic engineering— over half of them entering the field in the last 10 years.

Animal vaccines and antibodies— proteins in the blood that fight disease — have been the first genetically engi- neered products to become commer- cially marketable. Safer and more effective than more conventional medi- cines, these products have already proven profitable. Last year Molecular Genetics of Minnetonka, Minn., sold $1 million worth of new genetically engineered antibodies for calf scours, a form of diarrhea that kiUs up to a mil- hon calves in the United States each year. The company hopes to market the first genetically engineered oral vaccines for livestock in 1988.

Biologies Corp. of Omaha, Neb., is also profiting from a recently marketed vaccine against pseudorabies. a neuro- logical disease that affects swine. With this vaccine, made by clipping one gene from the genetic code of the pseudo- rabies virus, Biologies Corp. expects to profit from an estimated product market of $5-$6 million. Use of the vaccine will save hog producers $60 million a year.

Other major genetically engineered products that are expected in the com- mercial marketplace before the end of the decade are growth hormones. Now in the testing stage, these hormones are being used to increase the production of meat and milk.

The Monsanto Company is using a bovine growth hormone at Cornell University, where daily injections are causing cows to produce 10 to 40 percent more milk. Anticipating FDA approval to market the product by 1990. Monsanto predicts the worldwide market for the growth hormone to be $1 billion a year.

In University Park. Penn.. daily growth hormone injections have pro- duced pigs with less fat and increased growth over non-injected pigs. Accord- ing to researchers at Pennsylvania State University, the hogs need 20 to 35 per- cent less feed to reach market weight, which could save pork producers from $2 to $6 billion annually.

Quotable

Says industry researcher Dr. Charles Muscoplat, Molecular Genet- ics Inc., Minnetonka. Minn.: "Genetic engineering technology is not a panacea, but it carries the realizable potential of solving some of the most difficult problems facing agri- culture today!'

Government physiologist Dr. Rob- ert Wall at USD As Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Md. comments: "We were thrilled that when seeking to increase growth in pigs, we successfully transplanted a growth hormone gene into an em- bryo and the animal lived. At first we were afraid to even draw blood from it for fear something might go wrong! You must remember that this technology hasn't developed over- night. It took the combined efforts of 7 scientists in 3 different cities years to produce this one special pig'.'

Yet with every new technology, criticism abounds. In the case of Monsanto' s cows, biotechnology nay- sayers are concerned that the produc- tion of so much milk will cause the ani- mals undue stress. The growth hor- mone testing is being protested by some farmers as well. Noting that a Cor- nell University study estimates that the use of bovine growth hormone will re- sult in a need for 10 to 25 percent fewer cows, large-scale farmers fear increased competition, while some small-scale farmers are concerned that the develop- ment could put them out of the dairy business entirely.

Criticism has been aimed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as well. So- cial activist Jeremy Rifkin of the Foun- dation on Economic Trends and the Humane Society of the U.S. challenged the Department in federal court to stop gene transfer experiments it has been undertaking at the Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Md. Calling it a violation of nature's boundaries by mak- ing human beings engineers of life, Rifkin objected to the experiments which have produced the successful transplant of a growth hormone gene into pigs and lambs.

While scientists and social critics debate the ethics of genetic engineering, government administrators are tackling the Herculean task of how to regulate the new technology.

Although not yet marketed, the eventual commercialization of geneti- cally engineered animals as human food may pose a number of legal and regu- latory questions that have not been encountered before.

Daniel D. Jones, of USDA's Office of Agricultural Biotechnology, points out a prior experience the federal meat in- spection program had with two hy- brid crosses of cattle and buffalo. One hybrid, called "cattalo," resulted from the direct cross-breeding of buffalo and cattle.

USDA determined that since cattalo have the physical appearance of buffalo and since buffalo need not be feder- ally inspected, there was no require- ment that the "cattalo" be inspected. Yet a second hybrid, "beefalo," said to

FOOD NEWS FOR CONSUMERS/SUMMER 1987

have resulted from a cross of 3/8ths buf- falo and 5/8tlis cattle, had the general physical appearance of domestic cattle and thus fell under USDA's manda- tory inspection requirement.

Provisions will also need to be made about labeling of food products pre- pared from bioengineered animals. Lab- oratories in the

United Kingdom and West Germany have produced what geneticists call a chimera (ki-me-ra), an organism con- taining tissues of different genetic origin— in this case, a sheep and goat. If this chimera were presented for slaughter, regulators are asking themselves, would the meat be labeled goat meat, sheep meat or Just plain animal meat?

Recognizing that the answers to these and many other questions may not be immediately forthcoming. USDA has published a policy paper dealing with the specific concerns of veterinary biotechnology, and has established an Office of Agriculture Biotechnology to oversee USDA's role in the evolution of this new technology.

Will the capability now available to manipulate genes bring a future of four-legged chickens and giant cattle? Not likely, says George E. Seidel. Jr.. of the Animal Reproduction Laboratory at Colorado State University at Ft. CoUins. "It's a common misconception that a major objective in animal engineering is to increase the size of animals," Sei- del says. "In most instances the oppo- site is true, simply because smaller an- imals cost less to maintain'.'

So although the technology may eventually exist to produce sheep with feathers and hogs with horns, in the near future at least cows will probably still look like cows, and chickens like chickens. It will be the animals' meta- boUc patterns that will be changed to make them produce more efficiently.

After all, as Seidel notes, in designing animals for the future, the most com- mon objective will be the same as it is now— to provide more and inexpensive food.

—Marjohe Davidson, a public affairs specialist for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, has written about public policy matters for 15 years.