Because of our interest in the so-called “Food Disparagement Laws” which have now been enacted in 13 states, we note with some interest the filing of the BPI v. ABC complaint in South Dakota State Court.

Our readers may want to view our February 7, 2012 post on the introduction by U.S. Representative Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) of the proposed Federal “Protecting Foods and Beverages from Government Attack Act of 2012”. This legislation would prohibit the use of federal money for advertising campaigns against any food or beverage deemed safe and lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

As many of our readers know, so-called “food disparagement laws” were passed in various states in the 1990’s. The Center for Science in the Public Interest provides a listing of the 13 US states that have passed food disparagement laws at:

We also note our March 23 and subsequent postings on the LFTB (a/k/a “Pink Slime”) controversy in which we point out that there was “no ‘science’ to support public fears” of LFTB.

“Of course, as food scientists we know that LFTB treated with ammonium hydroxide is a safe and pathogen free component of ground beef production (Log-10 pathogen reductions). Furthermore the food safety of our ground beef and precursor products will be significantly enhanced by the implementation by USDA/FSIS, on June 4, 2012, of routine sampling of ground-beef and its precursor products for six additional STEC E. coli serotypes (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145). Testing for E. coli O157:H7 is, of course, already mandated. Please see our post of February 9, 2012. The irony of the current media frenzy is not lost on food science professionals who know that LFTB production quality control has reached higher levels of pathogen elimination than has been attained in other components of ground beef. (See Pathogen Reduction Final Rule USDA/FSIS, 61 FR 38806, 25 July 1996)”

We believe that the complaint (posted below) is important reading for Regulatory Food Science professionals. As always, we advise our readers to study original documents rather than rely upon media reports by so-called journalists who are neither practicing lawyers nor credentialed scientists.