The pistachio salmonella recall of March could have been avoided had Setton, the California based processor, taken proper corrective action.

Recap: On the heels of the peanut butter recalls of January, March became pistachio recall month with about 2 million pounds of pistachios that Setton distributed having to be returned/destroyed. The pistachios were suspected of salmonella infection after testing by Kraft foods, a Setton customer, tested a shipment.

Turns out that Setton, according to the FDA, knew about salmonella contamination as early as October 2008, a full 6 months before the recalls even began. So why did they continue shipping?

What you need to know:

What does Setton do? They receive “fresh” pistachios from growers in California. These pistachios may sometimes be contaminated with harmful bacteria such as salmonella.  Setton processes the pistachios as follows: roast, package, and ship. Salmonella should be zapped by the roasting process. Ideally, no worries. However, if the unroasted pistachios come in contact with the roasted pistachios for some reason, the problems begin.

What did Setton do when it discovered its roasted pistachios were tainted? They re-roasted them and then shipped. That did not help. Did Setton try to figure out why the roasted nuts were tainted in the first place? Was there some sort of cross contamination that the plant mangers were unaware of?

Most likely Setton tried to rectify problems that may have caused the contamination. However, at some point the cost of fixing these problems became prohibitive.

This is where some owners/managers start cutting corners. If the risk seems tiny, why spend a million dollars renovating a production line?

Unfortunately, judgment can get cloudy in the face of profit and loss pressures. That’s why strong regulation and harsh punishments are needed. If a food factory owner holds the power of life and death in her hands, she must fear not only the business bottom line, but also the personal consequences of her decisions.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

It’s a shame that pistachios are being recalled en-mass due to a new salmonella outbreak. These are very healthy nuts!

As we wait for the FDA recall list to fatten up, let’s learn about this delicious nut.
1. The pistachio nut comes from the pistachio tree, native to western Asia – Turkey, Iran, Turkmenistan, and western Afghanistan.

2. Pistachios reached Europe from Iran at least as early as the 6th century.

3. In the US, pistachios are cultivated mostly in California and New Mexico.

4. Today’s top manufacturers of pistachio are Iran, US, Turkey, Syria, and China.

5. The pistachio nut is actually the seed of the tree fruit. This is what experts call a culinary nut, rather than a botanical nut.

6. The word pistachio originated from a mix of Persian and Latin.

7. If you thought a machine splits the shells open, you’re wrong. They split when the fruit ripens.

8. Each pistachio tree averages 120 lbs. of nuts every two years. That’s around 50,000 nuts.

9. Pistachios are rich in mono-unsaturated fats (the good kind). Research on the health benefits of pistachios has shown that they may help reduce levels of bad cholesterol (LDL) and lower the risk of heart disease.

10. Pistachios are also rich in Thiamin (vitamin B1) and vitamin B6.

11. A 1 oz. serving of pistachios of 40-50 nuts contains over 10% of the FDA’s daily values for fiber, magnesium, copper, and phosphorous. It will set you back 150 calories.

12. Like all food from plants, pistachios are cholesterol free.

13. In these dire times, try walnuts and cashews as alternatives. So far, they are safe….

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

flickr photo: tristanbrand

In round one, table sugar was the bad boy. Empty calories, with no nutritional benefits.

In round two, High Fructose Corn Syrup got heat, because of the perception that it is unnatural, and promotes obesity as well.

In round three, instead of both sugar and HFCS slowly disappearing from products, good ol’ sugar is back in many products that have long used HFCS, a cheaper sweetener derived from corn.

According to a recent New York Times article:

Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient.

From the tomato sauce on a Pizza Hut pie called “The Natural,” to the just-released soda Pepsi Natural, some of the biggest players in the American food business have started, in the last few months, replacing high-fructose corn syrup with old-fashioned sugar.

ConAgra uses only sugar or honey in its new Healthy Choice All Natural frozen entrees. Kraft Foods recently removed the corn sweetener from its salad dressings, and is working on its Lunchables line of portable meals and snacks.

Read the entire article…

What you need to know:

So which is better for you – Sugar or HFCS?

Neither.

Calorically, they are the same. Nutritionally, they are also the same – no nutrients whatsoever.

Although a recent study found trace amounts of mercury in HFCS, they are smaller than what you get from going outside and breathing in exhaust fumes from cars and factory smokestacks.

What to do at the supermarket:

Look for sugar , HFCS, and other synonyms on food labels. You’d be surprised in how many places sweeteners have found a place. In many cases, there is more than one sweetener in the ingredient list. Shy away from products who list sweeteners as one of the first ingredients in the ingredient list. As Pat Crawford of the Center for Weight and Health at the University of California, Berkeley says – “Keep sugar for the desserts”.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Just in time for the American Dietetic Associations annual Expo, a coalition of scientists and food manufacturers are announcing the Smart Choices Program aimed to help consumers make better food choices at the supermarket. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The nation’s dietitians, food makers and retailers want you to know how many calories are in that frozen pizza you devoured last night — and they don’t want you to have to go looking for it.

Amid widespread concern about obesity rates, eating habits and exercise patterns, they say they’ll help people make better eating choices by designating thousands of products as part of the new Smart Choices Program and adding nutritional information to the front of packages.

The labels, featuring calories per serving and number of servings, will likely be on products from food and beverage companies like Kraft Foods Inc., General Mills Inc., Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. starting next year, organizers say.

The goal of the program, to be unveiled Monday at the American Dietetic Association’s Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo, is to get people to make smarter food choices and thus improve public health.

Read article…

What you need to know:

A quick trip to the supermarket does not allow people much time to examine food labels in depth. And even if you do have a few minutes to kill, today’s nutrition labels are way too complicated for most shoppers.

Simplifying nutrition information for consumers is to be commended. Having the calorie and serving information prominently appear on the food package is great. But that green check mark is a bit worrying. Here’s why.

In a perfect world, the benchmark criteria used to state what’s better for us should be defined by the FDA and USDA, and not by Coca Cola and Kraft. This is because the federal regulator has only consumer’s welfare to consider, whereas food manufacturers have shareholders to please and profits to grow.

Granted, the Smart Choices coalition is very wide and includes many respectable academic figures, an improvement on single company initiatives such as PepsiCo’s Smartspot. Still, some people may find it difficult to accept nutrition recommendations from corporations whose ultimate interest is to sell more products.

It will be interesting to see how the American consumer reacts to Smart Choices and other labeling initiatives (see NuVal and Guiding Stars) in the coming years. And more importantly, to gauge their effects on improving our dietary choices.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription