[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8757-8758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        DECEPTIVE FOOD PACKAGING

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I call attention to a development 
within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, that has resulted in 
the sale of carbon-monoxide-treated meat to American consumers. 
Allowing this can deceive American consumers and raises serious public 
health concerns since the consumers can no longer rely on the way the 
meat looks to indicate its freshness.
  The use of carbon monoxide turns beef a shade of red that mimics very 
fresh red meat. Mixing carbon monoxide into the pre-packaged, air-tight 
packaging of beef allows it to retain its red color long after the 
expiration date on the package.
  The meatpacking industry argues that beef is actually safe up to 20 
days when refrigerated and much longer if it is frozen. They also argue 
that because untreated meat can begin to turn brown before its 
expiration date, it is not a true indication of the meat's freshness 
and consumers should not be relying on the color of the meat, but the 
expiration date on the package.
  That is a theoretical argument that fails in the real world. 
Consumers do rely on meat color and the industry knows that the only 
purpose of using carbon monoxide is to maintain the red color. 
Experiments with treated and untreated packages of beef compared how 
they age under refrigeration. After the expiration date, untreated meat 
begins to turn brown, while meat was still rosy pink if treated with 
carbon monoxide. Even though the treated beef looked fresh, it was in 
fact contaminated with E. coli bacterium and salmonella.
  The FDA has had longstanding rules against color alteration of meats 
but, inexplicably, the FDA has allowed carbon-monoxide-treated 
packaging to move forward. I asked the Food and Drug Administration for 
an explanation of this change. In their response, the FDA claims that 
adding carbon monoxide to the packaging meets their standard of 
``generally recognized as safe,'' and no further FDA approval is 
required.
  Relying on the procedures for substances that are ``generally 
recognized as safe'' is inappropriate for color additives and surely 
that should include any substance added to food whose purpose is to 
change its color. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the 
FDA is required to issue, through notice and comment rulemaking, the 
permissible conditions of use in regulations ``listing'' the color 
additive. The color additive ``listing'' procedure is a transparent 
process in which the public

[[Page 8758]]

is engaged. Consumers have the opportunity to comment on the safety and 
deception risks that are presented. For the FDA to allow the use of 
carbon monoxide for color alteration under the ``generally recognized 
as safe'' notification procedure ignores the well established listing 
requirements for public engagement in the policy development process.
  Since there are currently no requirements for the meatpacking 
industry to label which meats have been packed in carbon monoxide and 
which have not, it is especially important for consumers to look for 
the expiration date printed on all meat package labels and not just at 
the color of the beef. Even if the meat is purchased before the 
expiration date, consumers still need to be aware that beef packaged in 
carbon monoxide can spoil at home yet still look fresh. If consumers 
judge the freshness of beef by its red color without checking the 
expiration date on the package, they risk their health.
  Prepackaged beef should not be treated with carbon monoxide, but at a 
minimum, meat that has been treated with carbon monoxide should be 
clearly labeled so that consumers know what they are buying.
  Six consumer groups recently sent a letter to Senators asking that 
Congress take action on this important health issue. I ask unanimous 
consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Consumer Federation of America--Consumers Union Food & 
           Water Watch--Government Accountability Project National 
           Consumers League--Safe Tables Our Priority
                                                 January 18, 2007.
       Dear Senator: We write to urge Congress to institute a ban 
     on the use of carbon monoxide in a modified atmosphere 
     packaging (MAP) process for case-ready fresh meat. In January 
     2006, consumer groups sent a letter to the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     requesting the FDA and the USDA to re-visit their acceptance 
     of carbon monoxide usage in case-ready meats as a GRAS 
     (generally recognized as safe) substance. This request was 
     made for several reasons: (1) the science behind the decision 
     is questionable; (2) the decision was made without the 
     benefit of public dialogue and input; (3) this process has 
     already been banned in Europe; and (4) there is concern by 
     the American public that the meat that they purchase could 
     look fresher and safer than it actually is. However, despite 
     repeated calls from members of Congress and consumer groups, 
     the agencies have not acted.
       The addition of carbon monoxide utilized in the MAP 
     processing of fresh meat produces a new, bright red color in 
     the meat, which then masks the natural browning of the meat 
     that would occur over time. This could induce consumers to 
     buy and use meat products that are not as fresh as they 
     appear. Furthermore, case ready packages of meat processed 
     with carbon monoxide are not at this time required to have 
     labeling informing consumers that such a process was used.
       Even USDA has acknowledged the risk of misrepresentation to 
     consumers by noting that the use of carbon monoxide ``with 
     case ready fresh cuts of meat and ground beef could 
     potentially mislead consumers into believing that they are 
     purchasing a product that is fresher or of greater value than 
     it actually is and may increase the potential for masking 
     spoilage.'' This is precisely the situation Congress, by law, 
     intended to proscribe in establishing the adulteration and 
     misbranding provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
     Act (FDCA) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) in the 
     early 1900s.
       As a result of recent foodborne illness outbreaks which 
     sickened hundreds and caused several deaths, consumers are 
     becoming increasingly concerned about the federal 
     government's ability to protect them from contaminated food. 
     Consumers want more disclosure about food-processing 
     practices, not obfuscation, as is occurring with meat 
     utilizing a MAP process.
       The use of carbon monoxide in the MAP processing of fresh 
     meat means that consumers have no way of judging the 
     freshness of the meat, which Consumer Reports found could be 
     spoiled even before the labeled ``use-by or freeze-by'' date. 
     Proponents of carbon monoxide disingenuously point to smell 
     as a telltale sign of spoilage but consumers can't use smell 
     with sealed packages before the point of purchase. They have 
     to wait until they have purchased the meat and taken it home 
     to open the package and be able to smell it. Those with 
     impaired senses of smell may have difficulty in detecting 
     ``off'' odors. In addition, those at greatest risk of 
     contracting the most serious forms of foodborne illness, such 
     as the elderly, may have difficulty reading the stamped dates 
     on the packages.
       The Consumer Federation of America sponsored a national 
     survey that demonstrated overwhelming opposition from 
     consumers to the use of carbon monoxide in meat. When asked 
     whether the practice of treating red meat with carbon 
     monoxide is deceptive or not, 78 percent of consumers 
     surveyed said the practice is deceptive. In that same survey 
     68 percent of consumers said they would strongly support a 
     mandatory labeling law for carbon monoxide-treated meat.
       In addition, industry insistence that consumers rely on 
     ``use-by'' or ``freeze-by'' dates to determine the freshness 
     of the meat is not valid. Conventionally packaged (on-site) 
     meat and ground beef generally has a shelf life of 
     approximately four to five days, at which time the meat turns 
     brown and is either discounted or discarded. Meat that 
     arrives in store in a ``case-ready'' condition in typical 
     packaging (packaging that has not used CO or the MAP process) 
     has a shelf life of 10 to 12 days, before the meat changes 
     color. Contrast these shelf lives with the 28-day shelf life 
     granted by USDA for ground beef that is packaged under a MAP 
     process utilizing carbon monoxide. Even after that period of 
     time, the artificially bright red color persists, lessening 
     the likelihood that consumers will check the ``use-by or 
     freeze-by'' date.
       The findings of two studies, one by Consumer Reports and 
     one sponsored by Kalsec and conducted by S&J laboratories, 
     raised serious concerns that some carbon monoxide-treated 
     meat on store shelves and available to consumers may be 
     spoiled prior to the use-by date stamped on the package. 
     Additionally, a study conducted at Texas Tech and submitted 
     to the FDA by supporters of CO-meat seemed to corroborate 
     these findings--that CO-treated meat may be spoiled prior to 
     the use-by date on the label.
       The question now becomes, ``Are the agencies acting in the 
     best interests of consumers?'' If you believe as we do that 
     they are not, then it is incumbent upon Congress to act.
       As a result of the agencies' acceptance of this process and 
     unwillingness to revisit their decision based on new 
     information provided to them over the course of this past 
     year, the onus is now on consumers to determine for 
     themselves if the meat they are buying is fresh, not 
     presented to them in a deceptive manner, or potentially 
     unsafe. Unfortunately, consumers have been put in this 
     position without the information or tools to make these 
     determinations--such as clear labeling that indicates the use 
     and purpose of carbon monoxide, and communications programs 
     to inform consumers not to use color to judge the freshness 
     and quality of meat, as they usually do. As a result, 
     consumers have no indication that the color of this meat is 
     the result of the addition of carbon monoxide to the 
     packaging and are denied the opportunity to make informed 
     purchasing decisions. This practice therefore can deceive the 
     consumer into believing that meat is fresh when it may be 
     spoiled or that it is of higher quality than it appears.
       We respectfully urge the 110th Congress to take this matter 
     up by instituting an immediate ban on the use of carbon 
     monoxide in a MAP process for case-ready fresh meat. This 
     meat is sitting, unlabeled, on grocery store shelves now and 
     no action by FDA or USDA to reconsider its GRAS decision 
     seems to be forthcoming, despite the numerous concerns raised 
     above.
           Sincerely,
     Chris Waldrop,
       Consumer Federation of America.
     Jean Halloran,
       Consumers Union.
     Wenonah Hauter,
       Food & Water Watch.
     Jacqueline Ostfeld,
       Government Accountability Project.
     Linda Golodner,
       National Consumers League.
     Nancy Donley,
       S.T.O.P.--Safe Tables Our Priority.

                          ____________________