Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Post From Retired Border Agent on Mexican Drug Cartel

I'm a retired U.S. Border Patrol supervisor with 32 years experience. I am now a board member of NAFBPO, a group of dedicated former Border Patrol agents--some who attained the highest rank in the agency--who are fighting illegal immigration, amnesty and all the criminal activity that occurs on the border and in this country. As Lt Col Ollie North recently showed on his program, there is a war going on in Mexico and on our border. And as you have pointed out, Greta, it is slopping over into this country, particularly in Arizona and Texas. 

How long will it be until our law enforcement officers are finding mass graves on our soil? How long before the violent drug cartels with their thugs in our cities start assassinating our police chiefs, mayors, journalists and others who oppose their criminal activities? Not long, I judge as I believe it has already started. 

How long are American residents along the border going to be able to withstand being attacked, intimidated and murdered by cartel thugs? On top of the drug cartels, there are now credible rumors that Hezbollah and possibly other Islamic terrorist organizations are in Mexico, and have crossed our border. 

People who close their eyes to this menace are fools, or worse! We need to gain control of the southern border now! And that means American troops and equipment to close it down. But to hear what is coming from the White House..."All's quiet on the Southwestern front." 

by Bob Stille

Retired Border Patrol Agent

Posted via email from Global Politics

Votes For and Against S 510

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Who OPPOSED S.510

Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wicker (R-MS)

Posted via email from Global Politics

S 510 Passes 73 to 25 (Note: This does not yet make it law)

The US Senate approved the S.510 Food Safety Modernization Act that will increase the ability of the US Food and Drug Administration to recall contaminated foods, increase inspections, and require accountability of food producers across the country. The bill passed with a vote of 73 to 25, after an amendment was made to exempt small farmers who make less than $500,000 a year in sales. While the FDA is responsible for 80 percent of the nation’s food supply, the bill does not rule on meat and poultry processing plants which are under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture. A similar House bill passed last year, and now the two must be reconciled before being presented to the President to sign into law.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Facts and rumors: the current status of S. 510

Following the ongoing saga of S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, is like taking a graduate course in political science.   And sociology graduate students everywhere should be writing dissertations on how a bill designed to help protect the public from food hazards like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7  became a flashpoint for debates about the role of government in personal choice.

Let’s start with the rumors.   I’m hearing from sources inside the Beltway that the Senate and House have agreed to pass S. 510 in part because they can use it to get something else they want: repeal of an annoying provision in the health care reform act passed last spring that requires 1099 tax reports for business purchases.

The Senate is said to be dealing with S. 510 late in the afternoon or early evening of Monday, November 29.  It is supposed to work like this:

  • There will be a cloture motion, which will pass with 60 votes.
  • The Senate will agree that all amendments to S. 510 will require 67 votes.
  • Senator Coburn will offer amendments, but they will not get 67 votes.
  • The Senate will add language repealing the 1099 tax provision.
  • The Senate will pass the bill (this needs 51 votes)
  • The House will agree to accept the Senate bill as written with no changes.
  • The bill will get sent to President Obama to sign before Congress adjourns.
  • The President will sign the bill.

Maybe, but this does not sound like a done deal to me.  For one thing, opposition to S. 510 seems to be getting noisier.  Remember the adage “politics makes strange bedfellows?”  Take a look at the groups who now oppose the bill, united in their opposition to giving the FDA or government any additional authority:

  • The health food industry
  • The dietary supplement industry
  • The meat industry: American Meat Institute, Cattlemen’s Association, etc.
  • The Tea Party
  • The raw milk community and its legal arm, the Farmer to Consumer Legal Defense Fund
  • Some, but by no means all, small farmers and advocates for them

Missing from this list is Big Agriculture, an absence explained by the fact that the bill does not apply to feed commodities or to seeds.

As for the Tester amendment exempting small farms from certain provisions of the bill: It is opposed by 20 organizations of vegetable growers, and is also is likely to be opposed by companies like Monsanto which do not want the FDA making safety decisions based on size or anything else except risk.

Caroline Scott-Thomas writes in FoodNavigator-USA that all food producers, large and small, should be producing food safely, not least because bacteria do not care how big a farm might be: 

Think about it: If a large-scale cheese maker refused to recall potentially tainted products for financial reasons, as the Estrella Family Creamery is doing, would it inspire dewy-eyed sympathy? I doubt it.

I agree, and also with the comments of Bob Whitaker, the Produce Marketing Association’s Chief Science Officer, who points out that plenty of growers are already using preventive controls like the ones requires by S.510:

There are a lot of very small growers who are already doing this.  I think there is plenty of evidence where growers have already made this a priority and they have been able to do so in a pretty innovative manner. There is a cost to this…But it doesn’t have to be overwhelmingly expensive. A lot of this is common sense.  People need to dive in and understand that this is food and you have to take responsibility for the safety of our food, to the extent that you can… Consumers have to be confident that our products are safe.

I’ve seen this too.  Lots of small food producers do everything they can to reduce microbial risks.  They don’t need a government agency to tell them what to do.

Others, however, won’t take safety steps unless forced to.  That’s why we need this bill to pass.

In the meantime, the debate continues. USA Today, long concerned about food safety, favors the bill. Senator Coburn, however, does not.

Happy Thanksgiving holiday, everyone.

And special thanks to Carol Tucker Foreman of Consumer Federation of America for cluing me in on the latest developments.

Addition: Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP), a food safety advocacy group formed originally by parents of children harmed by eating fast-food hamburgers, strongly favors S. 51o.  Under its auspices, 80 victims of foodborne illness have written a letter to the Senate in the hope that this will help solidify support for passing this bill.

Many of us have traveled to Washington D.C. numerous times to meet with lawmakers, sharing our personal stories as to why stronger food safety laws are necessary; others of us have written opinion pieces, letters, and blog entries urging action on this important legislation. S. 510 would be the first major overhaul of the FDA’s food-safety authorities in decades. It is time to pass this legislation.

Comments

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Marion Nestle, Lee Zukor, Barry A. Martin, Jonathan Chiu, Cold Mud and others. Cold Mud said: Facts and rumors: the current status of S. 510 http://coldmud.com/red.cfm?type=e&id=76992 [...]

  • Anthro
  • November 24, 2010
  • 12:16 pm

Thank you for the clarification. I have been swamped with mail about this, even since I posted on Feedback and you kindly responded.

I am ready to disavow the Tester Amendment and simply push for passage as written. The same people that would risk drinking raw milk, just because its from a nearby farm, are pushing the Tester Amendment. Although I shop at WF and coops, I distrust their usually misguided efforts to subvert regulation aimed at public health. I quit buying the local brand of organic milk when I found out that they refuse to use antibiotics EVEN WHEN A COW IS SERIOUSLY ILL. They use “homeopathic remedies”! Eeeekkkk. Water (with a memory for all the pee and poo it’s been in contact with) for sick cows!

  • Miranda
  • November 24, 2010
  • 1:40 pm

Are the rumors true about the bill outlawing vegetable gardening and vegetable trading amongst friends/family/neighbors, etc.?

We are regulating our own traditional agricultural system into oblivion. Well-meaning public health authorities are concerned about short-term health risks from food-borne illness, but ignorant of long-term health risks due to the insidious degradation of our food system. For example, levels of specific essential minerals in produce have dropped by up to 70% in the last half century, mostly due to high-yield plant varieties. Who is growing the old high-mineral varieties? Hint: you won’t find them at Wal-Mart. They’re becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain because of onerous laws like 510 that are designed to reduce the risk of food-borne illness in large-scale operations.

I grew up drinking unpasteurized apple cider. In Washington state, I have to get it under the table. Not because it’s illegal, but because the laws are so restrictive that it’s practically impossible to produce legally on a small scale, which is the only scale on which it’s ever been produced. Raw cider tastes better, it’s as simple as that. I have a right to drink the same cider I grew up drinking, and I’m willing to accept the almost negligible risk of food-borne illness.

I don’t want to make it illegal to eat sterilized industrial food if that’s what people want, nor do I want them to prevent me from eating the kind of food my grandparents ate. 510 is another step toward the insidious industrialization of our food system.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 24, 2010
  • 6:03 pm

@Miranda: No, those rumors are not true. This bill covers the food facilities that sell to large markets.

  • Anthro
  • November 24, 2010
  • 7:11 pm

@Stephan

I truly sympathize with your view as far as it goes, but public health must trump individual fancies. I also grew up drinking fresh-pressed apple cider, and still do so–at a friend’s farm. That’s fine, but that friend would not start bottling and selling that cider, because he knows that someone could get sick from it for a variety of reasons and he doesn’t want to be responsible for that.

We have to get past this “me-ness” in our culture. You say you obtain your cider “under the table”; well, what’s wrong with that? I guess that’s not very different from me having cider at my friend’s farm or eating my own chickens’ eggs raw in Caesar salad dressing. But I would not use store bought eggs the same way.

Hi Anthro,

Thanks for your comment. When I was growing up in Virginia, everyone bought raw cider at roadside stands and no one thought twice about it. Raw cider tastes better than pasteurized. I understand that it carries a risk of foodborne illness, and I sincerely sympathize with people who have been hurt by foodborne illness. But let’s keep things in perspective. Drinking raw cider is safer than getting into your car and commuting to work.

Is it really worth it to further restrict our access to quality food when the risk of food-borne illness is already low, and the risk of serious disability or death from food poisoning is even lower? I call that hysteria and fear-mongering. I’m not in the Tea Party. I’m a liberal. I think regulation is often a good thing, but this has already gone too far. Food quality needs to be a top priority in this country or else our health and well-being will continue to lag behind most affluent nations.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 24, 2010
  • 9:24 pm

If you don’t mind my weighing in, I thought that this might be pertinent to your discussion. At least 11 sickened this month from E. Coli O157:H7 in unpasteurized apple cider. http://dhmh.maryland.gov/pressreleases/2010/ma110510.html

Many more people get in cars and commute to work than drink raw cider. I think before we start making statements that one is safer than the other, we have to really crunch the numbers. How many people drive vs. how many get injured in accidents.. How many people drink raw cider vs. how many get sick? .. etc.

  • Stephan
  • November 24, 2010
  • 10:00 pm

Hi Michael,

I acknowledge that raw cider carries a risk, but I don’t think citing an individual case helps us determine what that risk is. I take your point that people don’t drink raw cider as much as they drive, so how about another analogy. Roughly ten times more people die from car accidents than food poisoning each year. Furthermore, most of those food poisoning incidents have nothing to do with the producer or distributor, but rather with how food is handled by individuals after it’s bought. How far do we need to reduce that risk, and at what point are we sacrificing other important priorities?

I like to eat raw oysters too. I don’t want anyone pasteurizing my oysters. I understand that it carries a risk, but I’m a grown-up so I get to make that cost-benefit decision for myself. Put a label on the raw cider, put a label on the oysters, on the non-irradiated meat, so that people know that there’s a risk, and allow them pasteurized alternatives. But don’t make it illegal or prohibitively expensive for people who want to make the choice to eat top quality traditionally prepared foods.

I don’t want to force people to drink raw cider, and I don’t want them to force me to drink pasteurized cider. Regulating healthy traditional foods out of existence is hysterical nanny state politics at its worst.

Dr. Nestle said that “Some, but by no means all, small farmers and advocates for them” are against 510. There may be a few small-scale farmers who are for it, but I haven’t met one yet. Those I’ve spoken to feel highly threatened by 510. And why not, it is designed for large-scale producers and is generally onerous for the small ones on a number of levels. It exacerbates the competitive advantage that large-scale producers already have because they have the administrative and financial resources to comply. We are not just regulating out quality food, we are regulating out the farming profession.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 24, 2010
  • 10:31 pm

First of all, saying that the majority of foodborne illnesses are a result of consumer behavior speculation, no? Besides, when did it become the consumer’s job to keep E. Coli O157:H7 and other livestock bacteria out of their food?

They are not the source of the contamination. Eleven people did not put the same strain of E. Coli in their apple cider, just as thousands of people don’t put the same strain of Salmonella in their eggs.

There are far more consumers than food processing facilities. Trying to catch the problem before it fans out across hundreds of millions of people, as this bill does, is very reasonable.

The point of S.510 is to regulate the 160,000 or so domestic “facilities,” as well as the ones overseas. Not the 2 million or so farms. The HACCP section and the inspections that the farmers are being told will run them out of business don’t even apply to them.

The FDA defines a facility in a way that specifically exempts “Farms, i.e., facilities in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both.” http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/Bioterrorism/FoodFacilityRegistration/ucm081610.htm

Even before the addition of the Tester amendment (which exempts small, local facilities) the bill contains plenty of language directing FDA to write regulations that either exempt small businesses or are not onerous.

There is a lot of hype about how terrible the regulations will be for small farms. The thing is, most every farm will be exempt. Even for the facilities, the actual requirements have not been published and won’t be until after a public comment period.

Dr. Nestle,

Your statement, “Take a look at the groups who now oppose the bill, united in their opposition to giving the FDA or government any additional authority” is false.

As a grower, distributor and retailer of local, healthy food who has averaged 60+ hours/week for over 16 months working to defeat S 510, I know a lot more about what and why we are opposing S 510 than you do.

First, you continue to stress the grants of authority to the FDA in S 510 when, in fact, other than mandatory recall, it grants very little additional authority to the FDA. Almost every new “authority” cited by the apologists for S 510 has already been asserted or actually exercised by the FDA previously. This is the case in both of the sections resisted by the local, healthy food movement via Tester-Hagan. The authority to impose the new Sections 418 Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls (the HARPC plan requirement for facilities) and 419 Standards for Produce Safety (minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables) have both been repeatedly previously done (e.g., Juice HACCP and various guidances for tomatoes, etc. which would just as well have been written as “rules” rather than “guidances.”)

The sections of S 510 creating these new laws are only requiring that these regulations be created and declaring that the failure to comply is a “prohibited act.” This is a Congressional stamp of approval for 2 regulatory techniques that have been demonstrably shown to have very limited positive impact while having numerous negative impacts on food safety. In fact, in the case of the Standards for Produce Safety, the rulemaking process has already started. Were there no existing authority, it could not have started. The FDA forecast a proposed rule by year-end but no one believes they will meet the schedule because as everyone in the produce industry knows, no one has enough knowledge and wisdom to write such rules.

Second, Congress can’t grant itself additional authority under our system of government. All it can do is exercise the powers granted it under our Constitution and only the combined action of the States can alter that power.

Third, each group you named has it own rationale for opposing S 510 and the reasons are many. I agree with the majority of their reasons. Probably, my largest reason for opposing S 510 is that I will not stand idly by while our legislators are misled by the foolishness, dissembling and poor science of the advocates for S 510 and then pass a law that will dramatically decrease the probability of my children and their children to be able to buy local, healthy food. This is a joint effort with my wife because I wouldn’t have been able to do this had she not willingly been taking care of our store for local, healthy food while I do it. That is why I’m up early on Thanksgiving morning working at my computer to defeat S 510.

Fourth, the intellectual arrogance and the poor quality of the science that I have seen coming from the supporters of S 510 over these last 16 months has been astonishing. They have only been exceeded by the closed mindedness shown to additional or new information. Every outbreak, every recall, no matter what it involves, is held up as evidence supporting the passage of S 510. What poppycock!

Once again, I challenge you and every other apologist for S 510 to come to NC and debate the merits of this legislation and its approach to food safety with me and others from our thriving local, healthy food movement. We’ll happily give y’all the same reception we gave the USDA and the proponents of the National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (NLGMA) when they came to Charlotte for the last of those hearings on 10-22-09.

  • Cathy Richards
  • November 25, 2010
  • 1:42 pm

Since cider seems to be a grabber here, let’s look at some of the issues facing us today vs. when we were young.

1. Processing to consumption time was much shorter. People bought it locally, and drank it within a short time (or froze it). If that’s what you still do, you will most likely luck out. Now, apples from many orchards get sent somewhere centrally where they get comingled and co-contaminated, then it is shipped all over. Shipping = Time, Time = incubation, incubation = illness/death.

2. Deer didn’t have as much e.coli in their droppings then as they do now, due to urban/ranch/orchard/forest interfaces. One fallen apple with droppings on it can contaminate an entire processing plant, and overtime the levels of e.coli are high enough to cause illness.

I do indeed miss and long for the more-innocent (or less guilty) food systems of our youth. Just not sure getting back to those days can be legislated. Food safety can be, though.

Hi Michael,

What you didn’t mention is that many producers also process their food in ways that require “facilities”. For example, pressing apple cider requires a facility. Butchering meat requires one. So these regulations absolutely apply to small scale farmers, especially those that sell “value added” products at farmers markets. Small scale producers are not a bunch of chumps who are being misled into fearing this legislation. They know they are legitimately threatened by 510, which is why most of them oppose it.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 25, 2010
  • 3:00 pm

Stephen,

Butchering meat is regulated by the USDA, not the FDA. Regardless, the bill has for a long time included language directing FDA to make regulations flexible and able to be practiced by “small businesses such as a small food processing facility co-located on a farm.” Same goes for paperwork. It also allows FDA to exempt small, low-risk operations.

That is the reality, but it did not stop a flood of internet- for lack of a better word- nonsense. Now that the Tester amendment is shaping up to be part of the bill small, local facilities are exempted from the regulations about which the real sustainable ag community was somewhat concerned.

Okay, but the bill never was going to outlaw backyard organic gardening or seed saving. I’m not saying small farmers are chumps, by any means. Far from it, and I respect the profession and their dedication. What I am saying is that the internet jockeys who’ve purported to be representative of the small ag community were propagating a lot of nonfactual information and doomsday predictions.

Yes the Tester amendment will alleviate most of my concerns about 510 if it passes. My real concern is 510 passing without that amendment. Time will tell.

  • Cathy Richards
  • November 25, 2010
  • 4:14 pm

Everyone might be interested in reading this report on food safety issues facing small/medium farms.
http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?refid=106746
(It takes a while to load).
If the url doesn’t work/load, search for “Bridging the GAPs” and “Marie Kulick” and “Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy”.

[...] the country related to the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510). In a recent post on her blog Food Politics, she acknowledges that “following the ongoing saga is like taking a graduate course in [...]

  • Genie
  • November 26, 2010
  • 11:53 am

Legalize Freedom.

[...] and hold imported food to the same standard as domestic.As food policy guru Marion Nestle aptly put it, "Following the ongoing saga of S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, is like taking a graduate [...]

[...] Nestle, author and professor, gives a play-by-play on the rocky path of the food safety bill in Facts and Rumors: the current status of S. 510, citing lists of the strange bedfellows for and against the [...]

[...] more safe by increasing the jurisdiction of the FDA. A final vote on the bill has been pushed back, yet again, until 9AM tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I’ve included some links below to helpful articles [...

Posted via email from Kleerstreem's Posterous

Facts and rumors: the current status of S. 510

Following the ongoing saga of S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, is like taking a graduate course in political science.   And sociology graduate students everywhere should be writing dissertations on how a bill designed to help protect the public from food hazards like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7  became a flashpoint for debates about the role of government in personal choice.

Let’s start with the rumors.   I’m hearing from sources inside the Beltway that the Senate and House have agreed to pass S. 510 in part because they can use it to get something else they want: repeal of an annoying provision in the health care reform act passed last spring that requires 1099 tax reports for business purchases.

The Senate is said to be dealing with S. 510 late in the afternoon or early evening of Monday, November 29.  It is supposed to work like this:

  • There will be a cloture motion, which will pass with 60 votes.
  • The Senate will agree that all amendments to S. 510 will require 67 votes.
  • Senator Coburn will offer amendments, but they will not get 67 votes.
  • The Senate will add language repealing the 1099 tax provision.
  • The Senate will pass the bill (this needs 51 votes)
  • The House will agree to accept the Senate bill as written with no changes.
  • The bill will get sent to President Obama to sign before Congress adjourns.
  • The President will sign the bill.

Maybe, but this does not sound like a done deal to me.  For one thing, opposition to S. 510 seems to be getting noisier.  Remember the adage “politics makes strange bedfellows?”  Take a look at the groups who now oppose the bill, united in their opposition to giving the FDA or government any additional authority:

  • The health food industry
  • The dietary supplement industry
  • The meat industry: American Meat Institute, Cattlemen’s Association, etc.
  • The Tea Party
  • The raw milk community and its legal arm, the Farmer to Consumer Legal Defense Fund
  • Some, but by no means all, small farmers and advocates for them

Missing from this list is Big Agriculture, an absence explained by the fact that the bill does not apply to feed commodities or to seeds.

As for the Tester amendment exempting small farms from certain provisions of the bill: It is opposed by 20 organizations of vegetable growers, and is also is likely to be opposed by companies like Monsanto which do not want the FDA making safety decisions based on size or anything else except risk.

Caroline Scott-Thomas writes in FoodNavigator-USA that all food producers, large and small, should be producing food safely, not least because bacteria do not care how big a farm might be: 

Think about it: If a large-scale cheese maker refused to recall potentially tainted products for financial reasons, as the Estrella Family Creamery is doing, would it inspire dewy-eyed sympathy? I doubt it.

I agree, and also with the comments of Bob Whitaker, the Produce Marketing Association’s Chief Science Officer, who points out that plenty of growers are already using preventive controls like the ones requires by S.510:

There are a lot of very small growers who are already doing this.  I think there is plenty of evidence where growers have already made this a priority and they have been able to do so in a pretty innovative manner. There is a cost to this…But it doesn’t have to be overwhelmingly expensive. A lot of this is common sense.  People need to dive in and understand that this is food and you have to take responsibility for the safety of our food, to the extent that you can… Consumers have to be confident that our products are safe.

I’ve seen this too.  Lots of small food producers do everything they can to reduce microbial risks.  They don’t need a government agency to tell them what to do.

Others, however, won’t take safety steps unless forced to.  That’s why we need this bill to pass.

In the meantime, the debate continues. USA Today, long concerned about food safety, favors the bill. Senator Coburn, however, does not.

Happy Thanksgiving holiday, everyone.

And special thanks to Carol Tucker Foreman of Consumer Federation of America for cluing me in on the latest developments.

Addition: Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP), a food safety advocacy group formed originally by parents of children harmed by eating fast-food hamburgers, strongly favors S. 51o.  Under its auspices, 80 victims of foodborne illness have written a letter to the Senate in the hope that this will help solidify support for passing this bill.

Many of us have traveled to Washington D.C. numerous times to meet with lawmakers, sharing our personal stories as to why stronger food safety laws are necessary; others of us have written opinion pieces, letters, and blog entries urging action on this important legislation. S. 510 would be the first major overhaul of the FDA’s food-safety authorities in decades. It is time to pass this legislation.

Comments

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Marion Nestle, Lee Zukor, Barry A. Martin, Jonathan Chiu, Cold Mud and others. Cold Mud said: Facts and rumors: the current status of S. 510 http://coldmud.com/red.cfm?type=e&id=76992 [...]

  • Anthro
  • November 24, 2010
  • 12:16 pm

Thank you for the clarification. I have been swamped with mail about this, even since I posted on Feedback and you kindly responded.

I am ready to disavow the Tester Amendment and simply push for passage as written. The same people that would risk drinking raw milk, just because its from a nearby farm, are pushing the Tester Amendment. Although I shop at WF and coops, I distrust their usually misguided efforts to subvert regulation aimed at public health. I quit buying the local brand of organic milk when I found out that they refuse to use antibiotics EVEN WHEN A COW IS SERIOUSLY ILL. They use “homeopathic remedies”! Eeeekkkk. Water (with a memory for all the pee and poo it’s been in contact with) for sick cows!

  • Miranda
  • November 24, 2010
  • 1:40 pm

Are the rumors true about the bill outlawing vegetable gardening and vegetable trading amongst friends/family/neighbors, etc.?

We are regulating our own traditional agricultural system into oblivion. Well-meaning public health authorities are concerned about short-term health risks from food-borne illness, but ignorant of long-term health risks due to the insidious degradation of our food system. For example, levels of specific essential minerals in produce have dropped by up to 70% in the last half century, mostly due to high-yield plant varieties. Who is growing the old high-mineral varieties? Hint: you won’t find them at Wal-Mart. They’re becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain because of onerous laws like 510 that are designed to reduce the risk of food-borne illness in large-scale operations.

I grew up drinking unpasteurized apple cider. In Washington state, I have to get it under the table. Not because it’s illegal, but because the laws are so restrictive that it’s practically impossible to produce legally on a small scale, which is the only scale on which it’s ever been produced. Raw cider tastes better, it’s as simple as that. I have a right to drink the same cider I grew up drinking, and I’m willing to accept the almost negligible risk of food-borne illness.

I don’t want to make it illegal to eat sterilized industrial food if that’s what people want, nor do I want them to prevent me from eating the kind of food my grandparents ate. 510 is another step toward the insidious industrialization of our food system.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 24, 2010
  • 6:03 pm

@Miranda: No, those rumors are not true. This bill covers the food facilities that sell to large markets.

  • Anthro
  • November 24, 2010
  • 7:11 pm

@Stephan

I truly sympathize with your view as far as it goes, but public health must trump individual fancies. I also grew up drinking fresh-pressed apple cider, and still do so–at a friend’s farm. That’s fine, but that friend would not start bottling and selling that cider, because he knows that someone could get sick from it for a variety of reasons and he doesn’t want to be responsible for that.

We have to get past this “me-ness” in our culture. You say you obtain your cider “under the table”; well, what’s wrong with that? I guess that’s not very different from me having cider at my friend’s farm or eating my own chickens’ eggs raw in Caesar salad dressing. But I would not use store bought eggs the same way.

Hi Anthro,

Thanks for your comment. When I was growing up in Virginia, everyone bought raw cider at roadside stands and no one thought twice about it. Raw cider tastes better than pasteurized. I understand that it carries a risk of foodborne illness, and I sincerely sympathize with people who have been hurt by foodborne illness. But let’s keep things in perspective. Drinking raw cider is safer than getting into your car and commuting to work.

Is it really worth it to further restrict our access to quality food when the risk of food-borne illness is already low, and the risk of serious disability or death from food poisoning is even lower? I call that hysteria and fear-mongering. I’m not in the Tea Party. I’m a liberal. I think regulation is often a good thing, but this has already gone too far. Food quality needs to be a top priority in this country or else our health and well-being will continue to lag behind most affluent nations.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 24, 2010
  • 9:24 pm

If you don’t mind my weighing in, I thought that this might be pertinent to your discussion. At least 11 sickened this month from E. Coli O157:H7 in unpasteurized apple cider. http://dhmh.maryland.gov/pressreleases/2010/ma110510.html

Many more people get in cars and commute to work than drink raw cider. I think before we start making statements that one is safer than the other, we have to really crunch the numbers. How many people drive vs. how many get injured in accidents.. How many people drink raw cider vs. how many get sick? .. etc.

  • Stephan
  • November 24, 2010
  • 10:00 pm

Hi Michael,

I acknowledge that raw cider carries a risk, but I don’t think citing an individual case helps us determine what that risk is. I take your point that people don’t drink raw cider as much as they drive, so how about another analogy. Roughly ten times more people die from car accidents than food poisoning each year. Furthermore, most of those food poisoning incidents have nothing to do with the producer or distributor, but rather with how food is handled by individuals after it’s bought. How far do we need to reduce that risk, and at what point are we sacrificing other important priorities?

I like to eat raw oysters too. I don’t want anyone pasteurizing my oysters. I understand that it carries a risk, but I’m a grown-up so I get to make that cost-benefit decision for myself. Put a label on the raw cider, put a label on the oysters, on the non-irradiated meat, so that people know that there’s a risk, and allow them pasteurized alternatives. But don’t make it illegal or prohibitively expensive for people who want to make the choice to eat top quality traditionally prepared foods.

I don’t want to force people to drink raw cider, and I don’t want them to force me to drink pasteurized cider. Regulating healthy traditional foods out of existence is hysterical nanny state politics at its worst.

Dr. Nestle said that “Some, but by no means all, small farmers and advocates for them” are against 510. There may be a few small-scale farmers who are for it, but I haven’t met one yet. Those I’ve spoken to feel highly threatened by 510. And why not, it is designed for large-scale producers and is generally onerous for the small ones on a number of levels. It exacerbates the competitive advantage that large-scale producers already have because they have the administrative and financial resources to comply. We are not just regulating out quality food, we are regulating out the farming profession.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 24, 2010
  • 10:31 pm

First of all, saying that the majority of foodborne illnesses are a result of consumer behavior speculation, no? Besides, when did it become the consumer’s job to keep E. Coli O157:H7 and other livestock bacteria out of their food?

They are not the source of the contamination. Eleven people did not put the same strain of E. Coli in their apple cider, just as thousands of people don’t put the same strain of Salmonella in their eggs.

There are far more consumers than food processing facilities. Trying to catch the problem before it fans out across hundreds of millions of people, as this bill does, is very reasonable.

The point of S.510 is to regulate the 160,000 or so domestic “facilities,” as well as the ones overseas. Not the 2 million or so farms. The HACCP section and the inspections that the farmers are being told will run them out of business don’t even apply to them.

The FDA defines a facility in a way that specifically exempts “Farms, i.e., facilities in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including seafood), or both.” http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/Bioterrorism/FoodFacilityRegistration/ucm081610.htm

Even before the addition of the Tester amendment (which exempts small, local facilities) the bill contains plenty of language directing FDA to write regulations that either exempt small businesses or are not onerous.

There is a lot of hype about how terrible the regulations will be for small farms. The thing is, most every farm will be exempt. Even for the facilities, the actual requirements have not been published and won’t be until after a public comment period.

Dr. Nestle,

Your statement, “Take a look at the groups who now oppose the bill, united in their opposition to giving the FDA or government any additional authority” is false.

As a grower, distributor and retailer of local, healthy food who has averaged 60+ hours/week for over 16 months working to defeat S 510, I know a lot more about what and why we are opposing S 510 than you do.

First, you continue to stress the grants of authority to the FDA in S 510 when, in fact, other than mandatory recall, it grants very little additional authority to the FDA. Almost every new “authority” cited by the apologists for S 510 has already been asserted or actually exercised by the FDA previously. This is the case in both of the sections resisted by the local, healthy food movement via Tester-Hagan. The authority to impose the new Sections 418 Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls (the HARPC plan requirement for facilities) and 419 Standards for Produce Safety (minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables) have both been repeatedly previously done (e.g., Juice HACCP and various guidances for tomatoes, etc. which would just as well have been written as “rules” rather than “guidances.”)

The sections of S 510 creating these new laws are only requiring that these regulations be created and declaring that the failure to comply is a “prohibited act.” This is a Congressional stamp of approval for 2 regulatory techniques that have been demonstrably shown to have very limited positive impact while having numerous negative impacts on food safety. In fact, in the case of the Standards for Produce Safety, the rulemaking process has already started. Were there no existing authority, it could not have started. The FDA forecast a proposed rule by year-end but no one believes they will meet the schedule because as everyone in the produce industry knows, no one has enough knowledge and wisdom to write such rules.

Second, Congress can’t grant itself additional authority under our system of government. All it can do is exercise the powers granted it under our Constitution and only the combined action of the States can alter that power.

Third, each group you named has it own rationale for opposing S 510 and the reasons are many. I agree with the majority of their reasons. Probably, my largest reason for opposing S 510 is that I will not stand idly by while our legislators are misled by the foolishness, dissembling and poor science of the advocates for S 510 and then pass a law that will dramatically decrease the probability of my children and their children to be able to buy local, healthy food. This is a joint effort with my wife because I wouldn’t have been able to do this had she not willingly been taking care of our store for local, healthy food while I do it. That is why I’m up early on Thanksgiving morning working at my computer to defeat S 510.

Fourth, the intellectual arrogance and the poor quality of the science that I have seen coming from the supporters of S 510 over these last 16 months has been astonishing. They have only been exceeded by the closed mindedness shown to additional or new information. Every outbreak, every recall, no matter what it involves, is held up as evidence supporting the passage of S 510. What poppycock!

Once again, I challenge you and every other apologist for S 510 to come to NC and debate the merits of this legislation and its approach to food safety with me and others from our thriving local, healthy food movement. We’ll happily give y’all the same reception we gave the USDA and the proponents of the National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (NLGMA) when they came to Charlotte for the last of those hearings on 10-22-09.

  • Cathy Richards
  • November 25, 2010
  • 1:42 pm

Since cider seems to be a grabber here, let’s look at some of the issues facing us today vs. when we were young.

1. Processing to consumption time was much shorter. People bought it locally, and drank it within a short time (or froze it). If that’s what you still do, you will most likely luck out. Now, apples from many orchards get sent somewhere centrally where they get comingled and co-contaminated, then it is shipped all over. Shipping = Time, Time = incubation, incubation = illness/death.

2. Deer didn’t have as much e.coli in their droppings then as they do now, due to urban/ranch/orchard/forest interfaces. One fallen apple with droppings on it can contaminate an entire processing plant, and overtime the levels of e.coli are high enough to cause illness.

I do indeed miss and long for the more-innocent (or less guilty) food systems of our youth. Just not sure getting back to those days can be legislated. Food safety can be, though.

Hi Michael,

What you didn’t mention is that many producers also process their food in ways that require “facilities”. For example, pressing apple cider requires a facility. Butchering meat requires one. So these regulations absolutely apply to small scale farmers, especially those that sell “value added” products at farmers markets. Small scale producers are not a bunch of chumps who are being misled into fearing this legislation. They know they are legitimately threatened by 510, which is why most of them oppose it.

  • Michael Bulger
  • November 25, 2010
  • 3:00 pm

Stephen,

Butchering meat is regulated by the USDA, not the FDA. Regardless, the bill has for a long time included language directing FDA to make regulations flexible and able to be practiced by “small businesses such as a small food processing facility co-located on a farm.” Same goes for paperwork. It also allows FDA to exempt small, low-risk operations.

That is the reality, but it did not stop a flood of internet- for lack of a better word- nonsense. Now that the Tester amendment is shaping up to be part of the bill small, local facilities are exempted from the regulations about which the real sustainable ag community was somewhat concerned.

Okay, but the bill never was going to outlaw backyard organic gardening or seed saving. I’m not saying small farmers are chumps, by any means. Far from it, and I respect the profession and their dedication. What I am saying is that the internet jockeys who’ve purported to be representative of the small ag community were propagating a lot of nonfactual information and doomsday predictions.

Yes the Tester amendment will alleviate most of my concerns about 510 if it passes. My real concern is 510 passing without that amendment. Time will tell.

  • Cathy Richards
  • November 25, 2010
  • 4:14 pm

Everyone might be interested in reading this report on food safety issues facing small/medium farms.
http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?refid=106746
(It takes a while to load).
If the url doesn’t work/load, search for “Bridging the GAPs” and “Marie Kulick” and “Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy”.

[...] the country related to the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510). In a recent post on her blog Food Politics, she acknowledges that “following the ongoing saga is like taking a graduate course in [...]

  • Genie
  • November 26, 2010
  • 11:53 am

Legalize Freedom.

[...] and hold imported food to the same standard as domestic.As food policy guru Marion Nestle aptly put it, "Following the ongoing saga of S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, is like taking a graduate [...]

[...] Nestle, author and professor, gives a play-by-play on the rocky path of the food safety bill in Facts and Rumors: the current status of S. 510, citing lists of the strange bedfellows for and against the [...]

[...] more safe by increasing the jurisdiction of the FDA. A final vote on the bill has been pushed back, yet again, until 9AM tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I’ve included some links below to helpful articles [...

Posted via email from Global Politics

MinceMeat Pie Recipes

Check out recipe for Old-Fashioned Mincemeat Pie.

Unfortunately, most people have never tasted a true old-fashioned mincemeat pie (also called mince pie). The flavor of real mince meat pie (not the bottled version purchased at your local store) is sort of like a Middle Eastern mixture of cloves, cinnamon and nutmeg. There's a definite meaty taste, which I really liked, with an ever-so-slight sweet flavor. Check out Grandma Myers' Mincemeat Recipe and Elsie's Green Tomato Mincemeat Recipe.

Alton's Brown's Mincemeat Pie Recipe.............................

Ingredients

  • 2 Granny Smith Apples, peeled, cored and quartered
  • 8 ounces golden raisins
  • 6 ounces dark brown sugar
  • 4 ounces dried figs, coarsely chopped
  • 2 ounces dried cherries
  • 2 ounces beef suet, coarsely chopped
  • 1-ounce crystallized ginger, coarsely chopped
  • 1/2 cup brandy
  • orange, zested and juiced
  • lemon, zested and juiced
  • 1/2 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg
  • 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground allspice
  • 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground clove
  • Cornmeal crust, see recipe below

Directions

Place all of the ingredients except the crust into the bowl of a food processor and pulse 8 to 10 times. Place in an airtight container and store in the refrigerator for at least 3 days before using. Can be stored for up to 6 months.

If you prefer a finer texture of mincemeat place the apples, dried fruit and suet into a meat grinder with a large die and grind. Transfer to a bowl and stir in the remaining ingredients. You may also finelychop the apples, dried fruit and suet by hand.

Cornmeal Crust:

  • 12 ounces all-purpose flour, plus additional for dusting
  • 2 1/2 ounces stone ground cornmeal
  • 1 1/2 ounces sugar, plus extra for the crust
  • 1 teaspoon table salt
  • 8 ounces very cold unsalted butter
  • 2 ounces apple cider or juice
  • 2 ounces cold water
  • 1 egg beaten with 1 teaspoon water

Place the flour, cornmeal, 1 1/2 ounces sugar and salt into a large mixing bowl and whisk to combine. Grate the cold butter on the large side of a box grater directly into the dry ingredients. Work together with your hands until the mixture is crumbly. Add the cider and water and stir with a spatula to combine. Knead the dough 5 to 6 times and spritz with additional water if the dough is dry. Shape into a disk, wrap in plastic wrap and place in the refrigerator for 20 minutes.

Preheat oven to 400 degrees F.

Unwrap the dough and divide into 4 equal pieces. Place 2 pieces of the dough onto a piece of parchment paper and roll each out into a 1/8-inch thick round that is 6 to 8 inches in diameter. Spoon about 1/2 cup of the mincemeat into the center of each round, fold up the edges of the dough in order to form a crust all the way around. Brush the edges of the crust with egg wash and sprinkle lightly with sugar. Transfer the dough on the parchment to a half sheet pan. Place on the middle rack of the oven and bake for 30 minutes or until the crust is golden brown. Repeat with the remaining dough.

If you prefer 1 large pie, roll out the dough on a piece of parchment into a 15 to 16-inch round, about 1/4 to 1/8-inch thick. Trim the edges with a pizza cutter. Carefully slide the rolled out dough, still on the parchment paper, onto an upside down half sheet pan. Spoon about 1 1/2 pounds of the mincemeat onto the center of the dough, leaving a 2 to 3-inch margin around the edge of the crust. Place in the oven and bake for 35 minutes or until the crust is golden. Remove from the oven and allow to cool for 30 to 45 minutes before serving.

===============================

http://allrecipes.com//HowTo/holiday-baking-mincemeat-pies/Detail.aspx


===============================

MINCEMEAT PIE

MAKES TWO 9-INCH PIES (Recipe can be halved.)

Mincemeat pie is quite an oddity to someone who has never heard of it. I have read that mincemeat originated in Britain. Somewhere along the line, possibly on their migration across Europe to America, the Pennsylvania Dutch adopted it and made the pie often, so often that I thought it must have originated with them. Even though authentic mincemeat contains real meat, it is used in desserts. We lost our pie recipe a long time ago when my mother started using a commercially jarred mincemeat. Oddly enough, that variety contained dried fruits but no meat, as do most current day products and recipes. Since I am not a fan of dried fruits, I never cared for the meatless version of the pie. So, I searched and found a recipe by Jeff Smith that used meat. With my mother's help, I revised it to what she remembered as my grandmother's traditional mincemeat pie. This takes a bit of work, but it is quite good and worth making for a special treat during the Christmas season, which is when it was traditionally served. If you only need one pie, freeze or, as my grandmother used to do, can the remaining half of the filling for a later use. Alternately, you can easily halve the filling recipe.

INGREDIENTS
  • 1-1/4 pounds lean beef stew meat
  • 2-3/4 pounds Granny Smith apples, cored and chopped
  • 1/3 pound beef suet, coarsely ground
  • 3/4 pounds dark raisins
  • 1/2 pound dark brown sugar
  • 1/2 cup white vinegar
  • 1/4 cup molasses
  • 1/2 pound currants
  • 1/2 cup apple juice
  • 3/4 teaspoons ground cloves
  • 3/4 teaspoons ground nutmeg
  • 3/4 teaspoons ground allspice
  • 3/4 teaspoons ground cinnamon
  • 1/2 cup bourbon or rum, divided
  • Pastry dough for two double crust pies (see recipe linked below)


Posted via email from WellCare

More MM Pie History

Mincemeat developed as a way of preserving meat without salting or smoking some 500 years ago in England, where mince pies are still considered an essential accompaniment to holiday dinners just like the traditional plum pudding. This pie is a remnant of a medieval tradition of spiced meat dishes, usually minced mutton, that have survived because of its association with Christmas. This pies have also been known as Christmas Pies. Mince pie as part of the Christmas table had long been an English custom.

Today, we are accustomed to eating mince pie as a dessert, but actually "minced" pie and its follow-up "mincemeat pie" began as a main course dish with with more meat than fruit (a mixture of meat, dried fruits, and spices).  As fruits and spices became more plentiful in the 17th century, the spiciness of the pies increased accordingly.


11th Century - The Christmas pie came about at the time when the Crusaders were returning from the Holy Land. They brought home a variety of oriental spices. It was important to add three spices (cinnamon, cloves and nutmeg) for the three gifts given to the Christ child by the Magi. In honor of the birth of the Savior, the mince pie was originally made in an oblong casings (coffin or cradle shaped), with a place for the Christ Child to be placed on top. The baby was removed by the children and the manger (pie) was eaten in celebration. These pies were not very large, and it was thought lucky to eat one mince pie on each of the twelve days of Christmas (ending with Epiphany, the 6th of January).

Over the years, the pies grew smaller, the shape of the pie was gradually changed from oblong to round, and the meat content was gradually reduced until the pies were simply filled with a mixture of suet, spices and dried fruit, previously steeped in brandy. This filling was put into little pastry cases that were covered with pastry lids and then baked in an oven. Essentially, this is today’s English mince pie.

1413 - King Henry V of England served a mincemeat pie at his coronation in 1413. King Henry VIII liked his Christmas pie to be a main-dish pie filled with mincemeat.

1545 - A cookbook from the mid 16th century that also includes some account of domestic life, cookery and feasts in Tudor days, called A Proper newe Booke of Cokerye, declarynge what maner of  meates be beste in season, for al times in the yere, and how they ought to be dressed, and  serued at the table, bothe for fleshe dayes, and fyshe dayes, has a recipe for a pie that sounds alot like a modern day mincemeat pie:

To make Pyes - Pyes of mutton or beif must be fyne mynced and ceasoned wyth pepper and salte, and a lyttle saffron to coloure it, suet or marrow a good quantite, a lyttle vyneger, prumes, greate raysins and dates, take thefattest of the broathe of powdred beyfe, and yf you wyll have paest royall, take butter and yolkes of egges and so tempre the flowre to make the paeste.

1588 - In the1588 Good Hous-Wiues Treasurie by Edward Allde, meats were still cut up to be eaten with a spoon and combined with fruits and heavy spices. Typical was his recipe for Minst Pye which used practically the same ingredients that go into a modern mince pie.

1657 - Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), the self-proclaimed Lord Protector of England from 1649 until 1658, detested Christmas as a pagan holiday (one not sanctioned by the Bible, that promoted gluttony and drunkenness). Oliver Cromwell's Puritan Council abolished Christmas on December 22, 1657. In London, soldiers were ordered to go round the streets and take, by force if necessary, food being cooked for a Christmas celebration. The smell of a goose being cooked could bring trouble. Cromwell considered pies as a guilty, forbidden pleasure. The traditional mincemeat pie was banned. King Charles II (1630-1685) restored Christmas when he ascended the throne in 1660. 

1646 - In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, mince pies, sometimes known as shred or secrets pies, were made in eccentric shapes. Maybe this was done to originally hide the fact that these were actually mince pies which were banned during the Christmas celebration in England, and possibly the tradition just continued for many years. In the 1646 ballad, The World Turned Upside Down by Thomason Tracts, one verse of the song refers to "shred pie." The song was written bewailing Parliament's ban on Christmas:

To conclude, I'le tell you news that's right,
Christmas was kil'd at Naseby fight:
Charity was slain at that same time,
Jack Tell troth too, a friend of mine,
Likewise then did die,
Rost beef and shred pie,
Pig, Goose and Capon no quarter found.

Final Chorus: 
Yet let's be content and the times lament, 
You see the world is quite turned round.

1659 - In 1659, Oliver Cromwell's Puritan influence spread across the Atlantic ocean to American British Colonies, and many towns of New England went so far as to actually ban mincemeat pies at Christmas time. Christmas was actually banned in Boston from 1659 to 1681. Those celebrating it were fined.

1853 - Quaker Elizabeth Ellicott Lea explained in her book called Domestic Cookery that was published in 1853: "Where persons have a large family, and workmen on a farm, these pies are very useful." By useful, she meant that the pies could be baked in large numbers, and more importantly, during cold weather, they could be kept for as long as two months. The mincemeat could be made ahead and kept even longer.

1861 - How about whale mincemeat? In the book, Swan among the Indians: life of James G. Swan, 1818-1900; based upon Swan's hitherto unpublished diaries and journals, by Lucile Saunders McDonald, Swan describes a Christmas dinner with a mincemeat pie using whale meat:

On December 25, 1861, three "Boston men" sat down to Christmas dinner in the trading post established four years earlier at the edge of the Makah Indian reservation, Washington Territory, USA.

The traditional holiday was a welcome break from the unloading and distribution of a shipment of goods promised to the Makah by the treaty they had signed in 1855. James Swan, a periodic resident in Neah Bay, had, in the absence of the trader, prepared a feast of roast goose and duck stew, presenting for dessert a mince pie made from whale meat. The Indians, he wrote later, had brought him a fresh piece of whale meat months earlier that looked every bit as good as red beef. He had boiled it and cut it finely, adding chopped apples and wild cranberries, raisins, currants, salt, nutmeg, cloves, allspice, cinnamon, and brown sugar. After packing it into a ten-gallon stone jar, he had added a quart of New England rum and sealed it for future use.

Would the traditional mince pie, he worried, be welcomed if the diners learned it was made from whale? Yankee mincemeat was made from domestic animals or venison. His fears were soon dispelled. The small portions he had cautiously served were quickly downed and second helpings demanded by all.

Posted via email from WellCare

Mince Pie .... Some History


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An individual mince pie

mince pie, also known as minced pie, is a small British sweet pie traditionally served during the Christmas season. Its ingredients are traceable to the 13th century, when returning Europeancrusaders brought with them Middle Eastern recipes containing meats, fruits and spices.

The early mince pie was known by several names, including mutton pie, shrid pie and Christmas pie. Typically its ingredients were a mixture of minced meat, suet, a range of fruits, and spices such as cinnamoncloves and nutmeg. Served around Christmas, the savoury Christmas pie (as it became known) was associated with Catholic idolatry and during the English Civil War was banned by the Puritan authorities. Nevertheless, the tradition of eating mince pies at Christmas continued through to the Victorian era, although by then its recipe had become sweeter, and its size had reduced markedly from the large oblong shape once observed. Today the mince pie remains a popular seasonal treat enjoyed by families across the United Kingdom.

[edit]

History

The ingredients for the modern mince pie can be traced to the return of European crusaders from the Holy Land. Middle Eastern methods of cooking, which sometimes combined meats, fruits and spices, were popular at the time. Pies were created from such mixtures of sweet and savoury foods; in Tudor England, shrid pies (as they were known then) were formed from shredded meat, suet and dried fruit. The addition of spices such as cinnamoncloves and nutmeg was, according to the English antiquary John Timbs, "in token of the offerings of the Eastern Magi."[1][2] Several authors, including Timbs, viewed the pie as being derived from an old Roman custom practised during Saturnalia, where Roman fathers in the Vatican were presented with sweetmeats.[1] Early pies were much larger than those consumed today,[2] and oblong shaped; the jurist John Selden presumed that "the coffin of our Christmas-Pies, in shape long, is in Imitation of the Cratch [Jesus's crib]",[3]although writer T. F. Thistleton-Dyer thought Selden's explanation unlikely, as "in old English cookery books the crust of a pie is generally called 'the coffin.'"[4]

Christmas Pie, by William Henry Hunt

Mince pies were known by several names; by 1596 they were called mutton pies, and sometimes Christmas pies. Gervase Markham's recipe for mince pie, published in 1615, recommends taking "a leg of mutton", and cutting "the best of the flesh from the bone", before adding mutton suet, pepper, salt, cloves, mace, currants, raisins, prunes, dates and orange peel. He also suggested that beef or veal might be used in place of mutton.[5] In the north of England, goose was used in the pie's filling,[6] but more generallyneat's tongue was also used; a North American filling recipe published in 1854 includes chopped neat's tongue, beef suet, blood raisins, currants, mace, cloves, nutmeg, brown sugar, apples, lemons, brandy and orange peel.[7][8] According to John Brand, in Elizabethan and Jacobean-era England they were also known as minched pies. During the English Civil War, along with the censure of other Catholic customs, they were banned: "Nay, the poor rosemary and bays, and Christmas pie, is made an abomination."[9] Puritans were opposed to the mince pie, on account of its connection with Catholicism.[1] In his History of the Rebellion,Marchamont Needham wrote "All Plums the Prophets Sons defy, And Spice-broths are too hot; Treason's in a December-Pye, And Death within the Pot.[10] Some considered Christmas pies unfit to occupy the plate of a clergyman, causing Isaac Bickerstaff to comment:

The Christmas-pie is, in its own nature, a kind of consecrated cake, and a badge of distinction; and yet it is often forbidden, the Druid of the family. Strange that a sirloin of beef, whether boiled or roasted, when entire is exposed to the utmost depredeations and invasions; but if minced into small pieces, and tossed up with plumbs and sugar, it changes its property, and forsooth is meat for his master.[8]
Home-made mincemeat

In his essay The Life of Samuel ButlerSamuel Johnson wrote of "an old Puritan, who was alive in my childhood ...would have none of his superstitious meats and drinks."[nb 1] Another essay, published in the December 1733 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine, explained the popularity of "Christmas Pye" as perhaps "owing to the Barrenness of the Season, and the Scarcity of Fruit and Milk, to make Tarts, Custards, and other Desserts", but also possibly bearing "a religious kind of Relation to the Festivity from which it takes its Name." The author also mentions the Quakers' objection to the treat, "who distinguish their Feasts by an [sic] heretical Sort of Pudding, known by their Names, and inveigh against Christmas Pye, as an Invention of the Scarlet Whore of Babylon, an Hodge-Podge of Superstition, Popery, the Devil and all his Works."[12] Nevertheless, mince pies remained a popular treat at Christmas, although post-Reformation they lacked any signs of Catholic idolatry, and generally were smaller and sweeter.[13] People began to prepare the fruit and spice filling months before it was required, storing it in jars, and by the Victorian era the addition of meat had, for many, become an afterthought.[14] Today the mince pie remains a popular Christmas treat, although as the modern recipe is no longer the same list of 13 ingredients once used (representative of Christ and his 12 Apostles), it lacks the religious meaning contained therein.[1

Posted via email from WellCare