Saturday, April 16, 2011

Future of Environmental Public Health

Looking to the Future of Environmental Public Health


By Eddy Ball

August 2008

Seated beside Collman, left, Wilson underscored the need for community-based participatory research (CBPR). “We all know… that many of the situations are local and have to do with ways that certain communities are structured,” he said. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)

“What we want to do at this workshop is to work on creating a vision for future programs,” Collman told the participants. “This program builds on a lot of investments that we’ve made over the last decade.” (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)

According to Collman, the decision to involve NIEHS National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council members Hillary Carpenter, Ph.D., shown above, and Stefani Hines as participants was one more indication of the working group’s commitment to transparency. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)

Among the leaders in environmental public health attending the workshop was University of Washington Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Program Director Kristine Wong, a seasoned veteran of CBPR on the west coast. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)

Nancy Rothman, Ed.D., director of Community-based Practices at the Temple University School of Nursing, spoke on educational needs for nurses involved in environmental public health. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)

NIEHS Program Analyst Liam O’Fallon, shown during the meeting introduction, played an instrumental role in crafting the November 2007 RFI and analyzing the responses from a diverse mix of stakeholders. (Photo courtesy of Steve McCaw)The NIEHS Partnerships for Environmental Public Health (PEPH) working group held its first brainstorming workshop June 30 - July 1 in Rodbell Auditorium. Organized by the program staff in the NIEHS Division of Extramural Research and Training (DERT), the workshop brought together leaders representing diverse groups with a keen interest in environmental public health (EPH) from across the United States in an effort to chart a course for the Institute’s continued involvement in EPH over the decade to come.

The PEPH initiative arose from a congressional hearing held in September 2007, when NIEHS Acting Director Sam Wilson, M.D., testified about the Institute’s commitment to supporting environmental public health programs and community-based participatory research (CBPR). This testimony lead to NIEHS embarking on a series of activities designed to create this new PEPH program. In November 2007, the PEPH working group released a Request for Information (RFI). The RFI elicited some 120 responses about the Institute’s role in environmental public health from environmental health researchers, healthcare professionals, educators, policy makers and other members of the public with a vested interest in the effects of environmental exposures on health.

In his welcoming remarks, Wilson reinforced the message he delivered to Congress. “This meeting really is an instrumental opportunity for NIEHS and for the field of environmental health sciences,” he said, “to help the Institute frame its approach for moving forward over the next five to ten years. This area represents the research leading edge in real world health implications of environmental exposures — [as well as offering] a way to sharpen our focus on community-based environmental health challenges.”

Wilson spoke of the need to determine the “special niche” for NIEHS in the area of environmental public health and “to figure out how we will frame the research program as we go forward.”

DERT Susceptibility and Population Health Branch Chief Gwen Collman, Ph.D., filled in the details of the workshop’s goals. Collman described the Institute’s need for input from stakeholders about how to create something “unified, integrated and synergistic” to help meet future EPH challenges. She emphasized that the ideas DERT staff had already put forth were “straw men,” intended to spark open discussion and a free exchange of ideas. “Everything is a work in progress here,” she maintained. “We have no a priori ideas about what the workshop product is going to look like.”

The workshop was organized around three topics that were designed to start participants thinking broadly and end with more focused recommendations. Each session started with a panel discussion, followed by breakout groups (see text box) and reports back to the full assembly.

As the meeting came to a close on July 1, Collman took a few minutes to reflect on the workshop process and to outline the task ahead for the PEPH working group. According to her, over the next several weeks the group will consider the responses to the RFI, now posted online, along with workshop recommendations to prepare the 10-year plan for the new Partnerships for Environmental Public Health program.

Collman said that she found the workshop process to be very productive. As she hoped, she felt that by the end of the workshop the PEPH team was much closer to the goal of developing a comprehensive ten-year plan. She also thanked the PEPH team for their hard work on this initiative and the workshop planners for developing a strong participatory framework to facilitate exchange of ideas and insights among workshop participants.

In her final remarks, Collman talked about her first fifteen years working in environmental public health and searching for the most effective role for NIEHS. She noted that there have been times when the institute’s role and commitment to this area has come into question and said, “In ten years I don’t want it to be a question any more.”

..........................................................................................................................................................

Since his appointment in 1991 as the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), Dr. Kenneth Olden has worked steadfastly to develop the field of environmental health. As a result of his efforts during an almost 14-year tenure, the field of environmental health has matured and expanded to become one of the most comprehensive and humanly relevant disciplines in science. ........ It is hoped that the personal thoughts and opinions expressed in these essays will go beyond recollections to spur deliberations on the future of environmental health.

Mapping the future of environmental health and nursing: strategies for integrating national competencies into nursing practice.

Abstract


:Nurses are increasingly the primary contact for clients concerned about health problems related to their environment. In response to the need for nursing expertise in the field of environmental health, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) have designed core competencies for the nursing profession. The IOM competencies focus on four areas: (1) knowledge and concepts; (2) assessment and referral; advocacy, ethics, and risk communication; and (4) legislation and regulation. The competencies establish a baseline of knowledge and awareness in order for nurses to prevent and minimize health problems associated with exposure to environmental agents. To address the known difficulties of incorporating new priorities into established practice, nurses attending an environmental health short course participated in a nominal group process focusing on the question, "What specific actions can we take to bring environmental health into the mainstream of nursing practice?" This exercise was designed to bring the concepts of the national initiatives (IOM, NINR, ATSDR) to the awareness of individual nurses involved in the direct delivery of care. Results include 38 action items nurses identified as improving awareness and utilization of environmental health principles.
The top five ideas were:
(1) get environmental health listed as a requirement or competency in undergraduate nursing education;
(2) improve working relationships with interdepartmental persons-a team approach;
(3) strategically place students in essential organizations such as NIOSH, ATSDR, or CDC;
(4) educate nurse educators; and
(5) create environmental health awards in nursing. The 38 original ideas were also reorganized into a five-tiered conceptual model.

The concepts of this model include:
(1) developing partnerships;
(2) strengthening publications;
(3) enhancing continuing education;
(4) updating nursing practice; and
(5) strengthening schools of nursing. The model serves as a road map for action in building environmental health capacity within mainstream nursing.


National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)
 
Positioning NCEH/ATSDR for the Future of Environmental Health


Although numerous agencies and organizations at all levels are working in various facets of infectious disease prevention, CDC is universally recognized as the “go-to” agency when leadership and assistance are needed. This unquestioned leadership role results from CDC’s well-honed and highly effective model that includes staff assignments internationally and to State and local health agencies, training programs, disease tracking, epidemiology support, linkages with all relevant players, health promotion, risk assessment and communication, laboratory expertise, and applied research. The same model is needed regarding health problems related to the environment. Jointly, NCEH and ATSDR can establish this same model and leadership role for environmental public health within the next 5 years while ensuring that NCEH’s and ATSDR’s current programs (e.g., childhood lead poisoning prevention and Superfund) are not attenuated.

NCEH and ATSDR and our partners need to be able to respond to all the environmental public health objectives presented in, Healthy People 2010. The critical importance of achieving these objectives is reflected in the “Environmental Health” component of this document where it states, “Poor environmental quality is estimated to be directly responsible for approximately 25 percent of all preventable ill health in the world...” As a reflection of the pervasive impact of the environment on human health, it is notable that the “Environmental Health” focus area crosscuts with 17 other Healthy People 2010 focus areas.

NCEH/ATSDR need to be able to respond to the challenges posed by many of the Nation’s most prominent public health leaders at the NACCHO focus group discussions. This diverse group of leaders represented academia, public interest groups (e.g., Physicians for Social Responsibility), nonprofit organizations (e.g., National Safety Council, American Lung Association), Tribal representatives, other Federal agencies with environmental responsibilities, and organizations representing the interests of the public health field (e.g., National Association of Local Boards of Health, Public Health Foundation, and National Environmental Health Association). Participants virtually unanimously indicated that expanded national leadership from NCEH and ATSDR must address critical needs such as ensuring National coordination and reducing fragmentation of activities at all levels, promoting the field of environmental public health, aiding in developing the public health workforce through training support, and providing strategic and flexible financial support to State and local public health agencies.

NCEH/ATSDR also need to be able to answer the questions posed by the Pew Commission such as:

•Are environmental exposures related to clusters of childhood cancer and autism?

•What are the impacts of pesticide exposures on children’s health?

•What proportion of birth defects are related to environmental factors?

•Are adult-onset diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease related to cumulative environmental exposures?

•Are learning disabilities related to environmental exposures?

•How does particulate air pollution increase the risk of death for the elderly?

•Are endocrine-disrupting pollutants in the environment related to the increasing incidence of breast and prostate cancers?

These questions and issues such as health effects that may result from chronic, low-level exposures to a given toxicant or from mixtures of toxicants need to be addressed both for specific communities, and for the population of the United States in general.

To respond to increasing environmental health concerns by the public NCEH/ATSDR need to:

•Establish NCEH/ATSDR teams to provide consultation on and, as warranted, investigate environmentally related disease clusters and outbreaks following the public health model.

•Ensure that NCEH and ATSDR programs complement each other and function in concert.

•Provide assistance to State and local health agencies, professional organizations, and others to broaden their capacity in environmental public health through training, assignment of staff, and funding through grants and cooperative agreements.

•Establish the “Nationwide Health Tracking Network” proposed by the Pew Environmental Health Commission.

•Develop effective methods of preventing environmentally related diseases and effectively diagnosing and facilitating treatment when prevention fails.

•Expand emergency preparedness and response capacity to address the many complex issues of natural and technologic disasters and bioterrorism threats.

•Define and implement a joint applied research agenda for environmental public health.

•Pursue linking biomonitoring, environmental data, and disease tracking to further inform environmental and public health decision makers.

•Aggressively pursue the implications of the “new genetics” to better understand environmental exposure and gene interactions.

•Ensure that environmental justice principles are appropriately considered in all NCEH and ATSDR activities.

Additionally, NCEH/ATSDR need to share technical expertise with other countries and learn more about environmental public health impacts from exposure to toxic substances world wide

.................................................................................


Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 3


Foreword

This foreword provides an introduction to the national Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (EnvPHPS) and the Environmental Public Health Self-Assessment Instrument (Instrument). The EnvPHPS establish a set of standards that describe the level of performance and capacity to which all environmental health systems (EH System) and programs should aspire. The organizational framework for the standards is the ten Essential Environmental Public Health Services (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/Home/HealthService.htm), which outline the services in an EH System or program necessary to effectively protect and improve environmental and public health. The document describes the services and includes a set of optimal standards for each . The standards describe activities, actions, processes, an EH System or program performs to optimally provide the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. The results of the self-assessment can be used to determine action needed to improve capacity to perform the essential services. The instrument is designed to be used at multiple levels. For instance, it can be used to focus on a particular programmatic area of shared concern such as safe drinking water or vector control, or to assess a division, department, or the environmental health system.

The primary goal of the EnvPHPS is to promote continuous improvement of the national environmental public health system. The implementation of the EnvPHPS is intended to foster improvement at the state, tribal, local, territorial, and national levels through the following three efforts: Build capacity to provide the ten Essential Environmental Public Health Services Build community accountability for environmental public health services Build consistency of services across EH Systems or programs

Background

The EnvPHPS have been developed in cooperation with the National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS) Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to serve as a module of those standards. The EnvPHPS will enable a deeper assessment of an EH system’s or program’s capacity to provide Essential Environmental Public Health Services. This instrument will also enable a broader exploration and understanding of the relationships among public and private entities, individuals and informal associations that contribute to the delivery of environmental public health services within an EH system or program.

Value and benefits of the Environmental Public Health Performance Standards

EH Systems and programs that utilize the EnvPHPS may expect the following benefits: Educating participants about environmental health and the range of services and partners needed to improve the public’s health.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 4

Improving collaboration of partners to enhance communication, improve coordination of activities and resources, and reduce duplication of services. Identifying strengths and gaps that can be addressed through quality improvement efforts. Providing a benchmark for environmental public health practice improvements by establishing optimal standards and measures. Providing information and data that EH Systems and programs may use to better advocate for changes in policy or resource allocation to improve community environmental health status.

The EnvPHPS may be used to enhance the practice of environmental public health in several additional ways. First, the EnvPHPS can be used as a tool for orienting new or existing staff unfamiliar with environmental public health. Second, the standards provide an excellent description of what is meant by performing the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. Last, data can be collected from those who complete the instrument and aggregated to identify gaps and set an agenda to improve national environmental public health capacity. This national data collection process has not been established. No federal agency is currently collecting or using the data generated by this self-assessment process.

The use of these standards and the self-assessment process is intended to give environmental public health service providers a valid and reliable tool for measuring and continuously improving services and performance. The standards are being used in a variety of practice settings—activities, programs, department, agencies, and systems—to improve the quality of environmental public health services

Acknowledgments

The EnvPHPS received input from the organizations representing the nation’s leadership for environmental public health, including the following: American Public Health Association (APHA) Association of Environmental Health Academic Programs (AEHAP) Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH) National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) National Conference of Local Environmental Health Administrators (NCLEHA) National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL)

The Instrument was developed in collaboration with an expert panel of environmental health managers and practitioners led by CAPT Patrick O. Bohan, MSEH, MS, PhD, USPHS (Ret), Assistant Professor, East Central University, Ada, Oklahoma.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 5

The panel of experts who contributed to the creation of this instrument includes Gerry Barron, MPH, Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and former Deputy Director, Allegheny County Health Department, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Rob Blake, MPH, Chief, Environmental Health Services Branch, Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services, National Center for Environmental Health/ATSDR, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and former Director of Environmental Health Services for the State of Georgia Scott Holmes, MPH, Director, Environmental Health, Lincoln-Lancaster County, Nebraska Sarah Kotchian, EdM, MPH, PhD, former Research Assistant Professor, Institute for Public Health, University of New Mexico and former Director of the Albuquerque Environmental Health Department Carl Osaki, MPH, Clinical Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington and former Environmental Health Director of the Seattle/King County Health Department Ken Sharp, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Iowa Department of Public Health Peter Thornton, MPH, retired Director, Environmental Health, Volusia County, Florida Charles Treser, MPH, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington

Members of the Environmental Health Services Branch within the National Center for Environmental Health, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have been valuable partners and advisors throughout this project including Dr. Sharunda Buchanan, former Environmental Health Services Branch Chief and current Director, Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services; Rob Blake, Chief, Environmental Health Services Branch; CAPT John Sarisky, Senior Environmental Health Scientist; CAPT Charles Otto, Senior Environmental Health Scientist; and Dr. Hugh Mainzer, Epidemiologist. Liza Corso and Teresa Daub from the CDC NPHPS program have provided important feedback to ensure that the EnvPHPS are effectively linked to the NPHPS.

In addition, numerous federal, state, local, and tribal agencies and universities reviewed the draft instrument and provided valuable feedback for its improvement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the national Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (EnvPHPS)?

The EnvPHPS are a set of optimal standards modeled after the National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The EnvPHPS are based on the ten Essential Environmental Public Health Services that outline the necessary services in an EH System or program to effectively protect and improve environmental health.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 6

Each section of this document addresses one of the services and includes standards and questions. These questions or measures are used to determine to what extent the standards are met.

Why are the EnvPHPS needed when we already have the NPHPS?

The EnvPHPS were developed in cooperation with The National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS) Program. The NPHPS have proven useful in evaluating the performance of the overall public health system. The EnvPHPS were developed to serve as a module of the NPHPS and provide an opportunity for a more in-depth assessment of an EH System or program’s performance in providing the Essential Environmental Public Health Services.

Who should use the standards?

Potential users include local, state, territorial, federal, or tribal environmental health or public health systems, agencies, or programs that wish to pursue excellence through engagement in a quality improvement process utilizing the Essential Environmental Public Health Services framework and a set of national performance standards. The instrument can be used to focus on a particular programmatic area of shared concern such as safe drinking water or vector control. Alternatively, in a more holistic approach the instrument can be used to assess the environmental public health system beyond the agency or program level. The environmental public health system refers to the combination of public, private, and voluntary entities that contribute to, share responsibilities, or impact the delivery of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. Those completing the instrument are encouraged to consider an assessment process that recognizes that no program or agency works in isolation nor has full authority, responsibility, resources and capacity to effectively provide the essential services. Therefore, including individuals and community partners outside the program or agency can be useful. If a system assessment is conducted, additional partners should be included.

What results can we expect from implementing the EnvPHPS?

Through the process of completing the EnvPHPS, users will assess the capacity of an EH System or program to perform the Essential Environmental Public Health Services, identify critical gaps in performance to inform the development of an action plan to address the identified gaps and barriers to meeting the EnvPHPS, and educate staff and community partners about the role of environmental health in preventing disease and reducing hazards, and the infrastructure necessary to fulfill that role.

The information obtained from completing the instrument can be used to

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 7

track and measure accomplishment, approach decision-makers with information regarding the steps necessary to improve the environmental health system or program, and justify continued or expanded services, support for training, or additional staff.

What informational resources are available to our agency to support a journey to excellence?

The NPHPS Program (http://www.cdc.gov/od/ocphp/nphpsp/) has a wealth of information and guidance to offer on the process of undertaking this type of assessment, all of which can be easily adapted for use with partners in the environmental health system. Most notable are the “User Guide,” sample tools for preparing for the assessment, and resources for conducting an assessment with a group of internal and external partners.

Additionally, a tool kit is available on line that lists resources to support improvement in each of the ten essential services (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/EnvPHPS/resources.htm).

Essential Environmental Public Health Services

The Essential Environmental Public Health Services provide the framework for the self-assessment instrument. These services describe the collective set of capacities and activities necessary in an EH System or program to effectively support the provision of services and programs needed to improve and protect environmental health.

1. Monitor environmental and health status to identify and solve community environmental public health problems.

2. Diagnose and investigate environmental public health problems and health hazards in the community.

3. Inform, educate, and empower people about environmental public health issues.

4. Mobilize community partnerships and actions to identify and solve environmental public health problems.

5. Develop policies and plans that support individual and community environmental public health efforts.

6. Enforce laws and regulations that protect environmental public health and ensure safety.

7. Link people to needed environmental public health services and assure the provision of environmental public health services when otherwise unavailable.

8. Assure a competent environmental public health workforce.

9. Evaluate effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of personal and population-based environmental public health services.

10. Research for new insights and innovative solutions to environmental public health problems.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 8

The Essential Public Health Services were developed by the Core Public Health Functions Steering Committee in 1994 to describe the core functions of public health- assessment, policy development, and assurance—as identified in the 1988 Institute of Medicine Report The Future of Public Health. The Essential Public Health Services were later used as a guide for developing the National Public Health Performance Standards (NPHPS). The Essential Environmental Public Health Services were derived from the Essential Public Health Services and provide the basis for the national Environmental Public Health Performance Standards.

The Self-assessment Instrument

About the assessment instrument

The Instrument is divided into ten sections—one for each essential service. The Instrument is intended to be applied in totality to assess an EH System or program’s performance. Each section begins with a description of the essential service. The Instrument then presents a set of standards which describe the optimum performance of the essential services. Each standard is presented along with a narrative description and a brief list of the key actions needed to accomplish the standard. These actions form the basis of a series of questions to measure the performance of that standard. A positive response for all of the questions for a standard should result in fully meeting the optimal performance of that particular standard.

There are five possible responses associated with each of the questions. As each question is discussed, the response that best fits the current level of activity should be determined. The response to the assessment develops measures that can serve as a benchmark for future improvements. Improvement will not occur unless the self-assessment team is “brutally” honest with their responses. If a partial service is provided then it should be indicated as such. The response options are:

NO ACTIVITY 0% or absolutely no activity

MINIMAL ACTIVITY greater than zero but not more the 25% of the activity described within the question is met within the EH System or program

MODERATE ACTIVITY greater than 25%, but not more than 50% of the activity described within the question is met within the EH System or program

SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITY greater than 50% but not more than 75% of the activity described within the question is met within the EH System or program

OPTIMAL ACTIVITY greater than 75% of the activity described within the question is met within the EH System or program

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 9

Instructions for using the instrument

1. Determine whether the assessment will be of the EH System as a whole, a department of, or a particular programmatic area.

2. Identify the individual or core team responsible for coordinating the assessment and identify other team members who will be involved in completing the instrument. This may include environmental health staff, program managers, and other relevant partners from public agencies, private entities, and voluntary organizations that contribute to environmental health activities within a given area. The group should be appropriately representative of the breadth of individuals or agencies involved with providing the relevant environmental health services. For instance, if the assessment focuses on a food program, you may wish to include environmental health specialists, supervisors, members of the regulated food community, consumers, individuals from food programs at another level of government, etc. If the assessment will focus on the broad multi-agency environmental health system in the jurisdiction, include representatives from those groups that also provide environmental health services in that area. The size and constituency of the group will vary, but, in general, a group size of 5-15 allows time for discussion of various viewpoints as the group completes the instrument.

3. Orient the group to the assessment documents and process. Have a brief discussion of the core functions of public health (assessment, policy development, and assurance), the Essential Services of Public Health, the Essential Environmental Public Health Services, the national Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (EnvPHPS), and the value of completing the assessment. It may be useful for the group to review the training course on the Ten Essential Services of Environmental Health, developed by Carl Osaki and available at no charge at http://www.wvdhhr.org/envhealth/index.htm. Have the group review the national Environmental Public Health Performance Standards document before beginning work on the self-assessment instrument.

4. Set a time to conduct the assessment. Groups have generally been able to complete the assessment in a day (or less), however, your group will decide what schedule works best.

5. Review the two parts to the instrument. Part I requests general information about the environmental health program. This includes some demographic information about the population served, the environmental health staff who provide the services, and budget data. Part II includes questions (measures) that assess the capacity of the EH System or program to provide the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. The responses to these questions serve as a measure of the level of performance.

6. Discuss the five possible responses to each question. As each question is discussed, the team should determine the response that best fits the current level of activity. Do not leave a response blank. Each response should be based on the current level of activities and existing capacity.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 10

7. Agree on the level of activity for each measure and record responses on the final self-assessment form. Be sure to make a copy of the completed form for your records.

8. Enter each response into the self-assessment database. The database will calculate a score for each of the ten services and create an overall self-assessment score. Results can be presented categorically or numerically.

9. Reconvene the group to consider next steps once the jurisdiction has the results of its self-assessment. A jurisdiction may score low on several of the essential services. The group should review the gaps revealed by the self-assessment, set priorities and develop an improvement plan for one or more of the identified gaps. For each gap, the group should first consider why the gap exists. What circumstances allow this gap to exist, have previous attempts been made to address this gap and why did these fixes not work? After fully understanding why a gap exists the team is ready to begin developing intervention options. The team should consider all options and select the most appropriate and reasonable intervention. The team will then develop an action plan to implement the intervention. The group may also wish to establish a schedule for periodically reviewing progress on the action plan, and for reassessing the program or jurisdiction after a specified time period to assess progress.

Essential Service #1: Monitor Environmental and Health Status to Identify and Solve Community Environmental Public Health Problems

This service includes Accurate assessment of the community’s environmental health status:

o Identification of community environmental health problems;

o Identification of the environmental factors contributing to environmental health problems and data on environmental quality (air quality, water quality). Utilization of appropriate methods and technology, such as geographic information systems, to collect, store, manage and interpret data. Communication of data to diverse audiences. Collaboration among all environmental health system partners to share data in order to track changes in environmental conditions that potentially impact environmental and human health.

Model Standard 1.1: Community Environmental Health Profile

The community environmental health profile (CEHP) summarizes data collected in a community assessment and describes the current status of a range of environmental health factors in a community. This information can be used to establish priorities, direct resources, and provide a baseline against which improvement is measured.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 11

The CEHP includes broad-based surveillance data and measures related to environmentally-related illness, disease, and injury and environmental health risks at individual and community levels including such information as: demographic and socioeconomic characteristics; environmental indicators (such as air quality data, drinking water quality); environmental health indicators (such as frequency of critical violations from food inspections, underground storage tanks); risk factors; and health status (such as death, illness, injury and infectious disease).

The CEHP displays information about community trends overall, as well as about population disparities in health status and hazard exposure. Local measures are compared with peer, state, and national benchmarks. Data are prepared and displayed in multiple formats so they are easily understood by diverse audiences, such as the media, community-based organizations and policy makers.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Conducts community environmental health assessments approximately every 3 years to monitor progress towards environmental health-related objectives. Compiles and periodically updates a community environmental health profile using community environmental health assessment data. Assures that profile (assessment) data can be easily understood and accessed by the community.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 1.1:

1.1A Has a community environmental health assessment been completed?

1.1B Is the community environmental health assessment updated at least every 3 years?

1.1C Are existing and potential environmental health trends identified by comparing analysis results to relevant benchmarks?

1.1C Discussion Toolbox: In considering 1.1C, are data compared with data from Peer (demographically similar) communities? The region? The state? The nation?

1.1D Have the data from the community environmental health assessment been compiled into an updated profile?

1.1D Discussion Toolbox: The profile may include the following elements: Environmentally related illness Environmentally related disease Environmentally related injury

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 12

Environmental factors contributing to environmental health problems (such as frequency of code violations, air and water quality indicators, etc.) Community perceptions and other information from the community environmental health assessment

1.1E Are environmental health data prepared in a format that allows for the clear communication and interpretation by the public and policy makers?

1.1F Is information about the community environmental health status easily available to individuals, community groups, and other organizations in a printed and web-based version?

Model Standard 1.2: Current Technology for Data Collection, Storage, and Analysis (e.g., GIS, surveys and databases)

The EH System or program develops plans to create and support data and information systems to assure accurate and timely reporting. The EH System or program identifies sources of the necessary data and contact information for obtaining the data. EH System or program utilizes current state-of-the-art technology to support data plans and information systems.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Identifies and uses current technology for collecting, storing, and analyzing environmental health data. Uses geographic information systems (GIS).

Please answer the following question related to Standard 1.2:

1.2A Are appropriate tools, such as GIS, used to support the profile databases?

1.2A Discussion Toolbox: In considering 1.2A, is current technology, such as GIS, used to Collect data? Manage data? Integrate databases? Analyze data?

Model Standard 1.3: Enhanced Environmental Health Databases and Plan

The EH System or program develops and implements a data collection plan to help with the assessment process. Data included in the community environmental health profile are accurate, reliable, and consistently interpreted according to the science and evidence-base for public health practice. Environmental health databases are maintained and linked with disease registries, environmental hazard/pollutant databases and exposure registries.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 13

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Collects data from other agencies and organizations involved in environmental and health protection. Creates a plan for addressing gaps in data needed.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 1.3:

1.3A Are data collected from a range of sources involved in environmental and public health protection (e.g., epidemiology, disease registries, tracking partners, local and state departments of environmental quality)?

1.3B Have plans been made to address gaps in information and data needed?

Essential Service #2: Diagnose and Investigate Environmental Public Health Problems and Health Hazards in the Community

This service includes Investigation of patterns and outbreaks of environmentally-related illness, disease, injury, environmental hazards, environmental risk factors, and other environmental health threats. Investigation and response to emergencies. Access to a public health laboratory capable of conducting rapid screening and high volume testing.

Model Standard 2.1: Identification and Surveillance of Environmental Health Threats

A surveillance system is in place to identify patterns and/or outbreaks of environmentally-related illness, disease, injury, environmental risk factors, and other environmental health hazards. Epidemiological and environmental health investigation techniques are used to collect data to identify environmental risk factors for environmentally-related health threats. Surveillance data, which can include frequency of critical food safety violations, results from inspections of various types of facilities, and air and water quality data, are used to track environmental health problems and hazards. Surveillance data are also used to examine the impact of environmental health hazards and risk factors on illness and mortality. Surveillance data provide information necessary to develop interventions aimed at stopping an outbreak, preventing future outbreaks or reversing the patterns of disease and environmental risk factors. The surveillance system is also critical in alerting a jurisdiction to unusual events or patterns that require immediate response.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 14

Participates in a surveillance system to identify patterns of environmentally-related illness, disease, injury, environmental risk factors, and other environmental health hazards that require a response. Uses timely information from variety of environmental and health data sources to identify patterns. Employs key environmental health staff trained in the application of epidemiology and statistics, or has access to Masters and/or Doctoral level statistical and epidemiological expertise to assess, investigate, and analyze environmental health threats and hazards.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 2.1:

2.1A Does the EH System or program operate or participate in an environmental health surveillance system that uses timely information from a variety of sources?

2.1B Does the EH System or program use protocols to investigate patterns and/or outbreaks of environmentally-related illness, disease, injury, environmental hazards, and risk factors?

2.1C Does the EH System or program have access to expertise in epidemiology and statistics such as Masters and/or Doctoral level statistical and epidemiological expertise?

2.1D Is key environmental health staff trained in the application of epidemiology and statistics?

Model Standard 2.2: Investigation and Response to Environmental Health Threats and Emergencies

Environmental health is integrated into the EH Systems and programs’ all-hazards emergency response plan. The EH System or program has a written plan that details the roles and responsibilities for the local environmental health staff in a natural disaster or other public health emergency. The EH System or program maintains a roster of personnel with the technical expertise to respond to potential natural disasters, biological, chemical, or radiological public health emergencies.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Defines roles and responsibilities of environmental health staff in emergencies. Develops written protocols for immediate investigation of public health threats and emergencies. Regularly updates roster of personnel.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 2.2:

2.2A Are roles and responsibilities of the local environmental health staff integrated into the all hazards emergency response plan?

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 15

2.2B Are written protocols available to guide immediate investigation of and response to public health threats and emergencies?

2.2C Does the EH System or program regularly update the roster of personnel with technical expertise to respond to potential natural disasters, biological, chemical or radiological public health emergencies?

Model Standard 2.3: Laboratory Accessibility

EH System or program has access to approved laboratories (e.g., credentialed, licensed) capable of supporting investigations of environmental health problems, hazards, and emergencies. EH System or program has written agreements and/or procurement processes in place to access services in emergency situations. In some communities, the actual testing of environmental samples may be performed outside the traditional public and environmental health system. However, the environmental health program retains the responsibility for ensuring that proper testing and timely results are available to the community.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Has agreements with laboratory (ies) capable of meeting routine and emergency diagnostic and surveillance needs. Maintains guidelines or protocols to address handling of laboratory samples as well as reporting of findings.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 2.3:

2.3A Does the EH System or program have established agreements and/or procurement processes to access (24 hours-per-day/7 days-per-week) approved laboratories capable of supporting investigations of environmental health problems, hazards and emergencies?

2.3B Are guidelines or protocols in place to address handling of laboratory samples and reporting of findings?

Essential Service #3: Inform, Educate, and Empower People about Environmental Public Health Issues

This service includes Communicating the status of environmental health and environmentally-related illness, disease, and injury to the community.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 16

Designing culturally appropriate environmental health information, environmental health education, and environmental health promotion activities to reduce environmental health risk and promote better health. Maintaining accessible environmental health information and educational resources. Targeting environmental health education activities to specific groups as necessary (children, septic tank installers and owners, community water systems operators, etc.). Establishing emergency risk communication processes designed to inform and mobilize the community regarding environmental health threats or crises.

Model Standard 3.1: Health Education, Health Promotion and Health Communications

There is a plan and system in place to routinely educate and inform the community about environmental health issues. The system recognizes the important role of health education and promotion in ensuring that all community members have the opportunity to become informed about and participate in environmental health decisions. Effective community-based environmental health education uses targeted and culturally appropriate language, materials, and processes. Health communications activities include media campaigns, social marketing, entertainment education and interactive health communication. The EH System or program chooses among a variety of communication channels including interpersonal, small group, organizational, community and mass media to most effectively reach specific segments of the community.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Provides the public, policy makers and stakeholders with information on community environmental health status and needs, as well as information on policies and programs that can improve environmental health. Collaborates with various entities in the community on health education and promotion activities. Utilizes appropriate communication channels and tools to reach and address the needs of various target audiences.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 3.1:

3.1A Does the EH System or program have a health communications plan that routinely provides the community (general public, policy makers, and public and private stakeholders) with EH information to enable effective individual, community and policy action?

3.1B Does the EH System or program work with the community to identify health education needs of different segments of the community?

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 17

3.1C Does the EH System or program develop appropriate and targeted messages for various segments of the community (e.g., vulnerable, sensitive or disproportionately impacted populations)?

3.1D Are broad-based partners (such as health department, planning and zoning, public works, building, environmental advocacy groups, and the media) working together on environmental health education and promotion activities?

3.1E Does the communications plan provide guidance on creating messages and materials appropriate to the differing communication channels (e.g., Internet, print, radio, and television)?

Model Standard 3.2: Crisis Communications

Crisis communication is the provision of information by public officials to allow individuals, stakeholders, or an entire community to make the best possible decisions about their safety and well-being during a crisis or emergency.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program: Develops emergency communications plan(s) and procedures to coordinate governmental alerts to the community about possible environmental health threats and disease outbreaks.

Please answer the following question related to Standard 3.2:

3.2A Does the EH System or program have emergency communication plan(s) to share information among key responders and the public in the event of potentially serious environmental health threats, disease outbreaks and other emergencies?

3.2A Discussion Toolbox: In considering 3.2A, does the emergency communications plan Integrate with other emergency communications plans and partners? Identify procedures for inter-agency coordination? Include procedures for alerting all subpopulations in the community?

Essential Service #4: Mobilize Community Partnerships and Actions to Identify and Solve Environmental Public Health Problems

This service includes Identifying potential stakeholders who contribute to or benefit from environmental health, and increase their awareness of the value of environmental health.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 18

Building coalitions to draw upon the full range of potential human and material resources to improve the community’s environmental health. Convening and facilitating partnerships among groups and associations (including those not typically considered to be environmental health-related) in undertaking defined environmental health improvement projects.

Model Standard 4.1: Constituency Development

Comprehensively identifying and solving environmental health problems can best be accomplished with the assistance or input from constituents and stakeholders within the community. Establishing two-way channels to provide the community with information about the status of environmental health (both environmental and health) and solicit input from the community is essential in addressing environmental health issues in a comprehensive manner. Constituents of the EH System or program include all persons and organizations that directly contribute to or benefit from environmental health. These may include members of the public served by the EH System or program, the governmental bodies it represents, and other health, environmental, and non-health-related organizations in the community. Constituency development is the process of establishing collaborative relationships among other entities charged with environmental health protection and among current or potential stakeholders.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Establishes a process to identify key constituents, stakeholders and partners for community environmental health in general (e.g., improved environmental health conditions at the community level) or for specific environmental health concerns (e.g., drinking water, vector-borne disease, food safety). Establishes and maintains a comprehensive directory of community organizations and agencies with an interest in environmental health issues and services. Encourages constituent participation in environmental health decisions and policy development.

Please answer the following questions related to Standard 4.1:

4.1A Does the EH System or program maintain an up-to-date directory of key constituents and stakeholders for environmental health?

4.1B Does the EH System or program have a plan and process that employs a variety of methods to involve constituents in key decisions and policy development for environmental health issues?

Model Standard 4.2: Community Partnerships

Community partnerships describe a range of relationships (e.g., networking, coordination, cooperation and collaboration) that foster the sharing of information, resources, and/or accountability in

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 19

undertaking community environmental health improvement. For example, several groups in the jurisdiction with an interest in food safety (such as restaurant owners, producers and consumers) may partner to address concerns particular to the food protection program.

Multi-sector collaboration can be defined as: a voluntary strategic alliance of public, private, and nonprofit organizations to enhance each other’s capacity to achieve a common purpose by sharing risks, responsibilities, resources, and rewards. Multi-sector partnerships can contribute greatly to effective community environmental health improvements.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Establishes partnerships among government agencies (e.g., health, environment, agriculture) and the private sector (e.g., professional associations, trade associations, advocacy groups and universities).

Please answer the following question related to Standard 4.2:

4.2A Are partnerships among government agencies and the private sector used to enhance environmental health program effectiveness?

Essential Service #5: Develop Policies and Plans That Support Individual and Community Environmental Public Health Efforts

This service includes An effective governmental presence at the local level. Development of policy that protects the health of the public from environmental factors, promotes the ecological balances important to human health and guides the practice of environmental health within the community. Systematic community-level and state-level planning for environmental health improvement and emergency response and preparedness. Alignment of local environmental health program resources and strategies with a community environmental health improvement plan.

Model Standard 5.1: Governmental Presence at the Local Level

Every community must be served by a governmental environmental health entity. As the line of first defense, the local governmental environmental health entity plays an especially vital role in ensuring the safety, health, and well-being of communities. The governmental environmental health entity works in partnership with the community to assure the development and maintenance of a flexible and dynamic environmental health system that provides the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. In many

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 20

places, the local health or environmental health department or a local branch of the state health agency serves as the local governmental environmental health entity.

To accomplish this, the environmental health system Provides a designated governmental environmental health entity to assure the delivery of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services to the community.

Please answer the following question related to Model Standard 5.1:

5.1A Does the environmental health system provide a governmental environmental health entity (i.e. local environmental health department or local office of a state health or environmental health department) to assure the delivery of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services to the community?

Model Standard 5.2: Public Health Policy Development

The governmental entity works well with its community partners to develop necessary policy and program resources. Policy development is a process that enables informed decisions to be made concerning issues related to environmental health. “Policy development” involves the means by which problem identification, technical knowledge of possible solutions, and societal values join to set a course of action. Policy development is not synonymous with the development of laws, rules, and regulations (which are the focus of Essential Service # 6). Laws, rules, and regulations may be adopted as tools to implement policy, but good policies must precede good legislation.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Uses data from various environmental health sources and assessments to make recommendations on establishing priorities for policy development to address critical environmental health issues. Contributes to the development and/or modification of public and environmental health policy by facilitating community involvement and engaging in activities that inform the public and environmental health policy development process. Advocates for policies and plans to ensure consistent and equitable services within all geographic areas and segments of the community to ensure social and environmental equity. Advocates for policies and plans directed toward protecting populations who bear a disproportionate burden of mortality or morbidity or are particularly sensitive to some environmental health threats. Alerts policymakers and the public regarding the potential environmental health impacts (both intended and unintended) from current and/or proposed policies Reviews existing policies at least every two years.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 21

Please answer the following questions related to Model Standard 5.2:

5.2A Has the EH System or program developed a community environmental health improvement process in which environmental health policy needs are identified?

5.2B Does the system/program advocate for prevention and protection policies for those in the community who bear a disproportionate burden of mortality or morbidity, or that are particularly sensitive to some environmental health issues?

5.2C Is a process in place to review existing policies every two years?

Model Standard 5.3: Community Environmental Health Improvement Process and Strategic Planning

The community environmental health improvement process involves an ongoing collaborative, community-wide effort by the local EH System or program to anticipate, recognize, evaluate, and address environmental health problems including issues classified within traditional environmental health, as well as other community issues that indirectly affecting the community’s environmental health including business and economic development, housing, and land use planning. The key steps in a community environmental health assessment process include: assess applicable data; inventory community environmental health assets and resources; identify community perceptions about environmental health; develop and implement coordinated strategies; develop measurable objectives and indicators; identify entities accountable; and cultivate community “ownership” of the entire process. The community environmental health improvement process provides the opportunity to develop a community-owned plan that will ultimately lead to a healthier community. The community environmental health improvement process is further strengthened by the organizational strategic planning activities of key environmental health agencies and partners to achieve community environmental health improvement objectives and identify entities accountable to achieve each objective.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Establishes a community environmental health improvement process which includes broad-based participation and uses information from community environmental health assessments. Develops organizational strategic plans to identify goals, objectives, outcome measures, and a plan of action to address needs identified through the community improvement process. The strategic plan is updated periodically.

Please answer the following question related to Model Standard 5.3:

5.3A Has the EH System or program incorporated the Community Environmental Health Assessment and stakeholder input into a community environmental health improvement plan which identifies environmental health priorities, policies and resources?

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 22

Model Standard 5.4: Plan for Environmental Health Emergencies

An essential community plan is an “All Hazards” emergency preparedness and response plan which describes the roles, functions and responsibilities of local partners in the event of one or more types of environmental health emergencies. These plans describe community interventions necessary to prevent, monitor and control an incident or emergency event.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Develops a plan that defines environmental health disasters and emergencies that might trigger implementation of the emergency response plan, describes organizational responsibilities, establishes standard operating procedures, and clearly outlines alert and evacuation protocols.

Please answer the following question related to Model Standard 5.4:

5.4A Does the EH System or program have an all-hazards emergency preparedness and response plan?

Essential Service #6: Enforce Laws and Regulations that Protect Environmental Public Health and Ensure Safety

This service includes Reviewing, evaluating, and revising laws and regulations designed to protect health, environmental quality, and safety to assure that they reflect current scientific knowledge and best practices for achieving compliance. Educating persons and entities obligated to obey or to enforce laws and regulations designed to protect health, environmental quality, and safety in order to encourage compliance. Assuring compliance with environmental health and protection laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies.

Model Standard 6.1: Review and Evaluation of Current Laws, Regulations and Ordinances

The EH System or program reviews and assesses the impact of state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances on the environmental health of the community including those which govern food safety, clean water and air, as well as those which affect environmental health and protection more broadly, including but not limited to land use, community design, transportation, and agriculture. The review includes scientific merit, best practices for achieving compliance, and opinions of constituents. Through this process, EH System or program determines whether existing laws need updating.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 23

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Reviews and assesses the impact of existing laws, regulations and ordinances at least every five years.

Please answer the following question related to model standard 6.1:

6.1A Are state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances reviewed, at least once every five years, to assess their impact on the environmental health of the community and determine whether they need updating?

Model Standard 6.2: Involvement in Improvement of Laws, Regulations and Ordinances

The EH System or program identifies gaps in public health and environmental laws, regulations, ordinances, or policies for problems and issues that can only be addressed through these means. The EH System or program participates in the modification of existing laws, regulations, and/or the formulation of new laws, regulations, and ordinances designed to assure and improve the public’s health and the quality of the environment that may impact human health. Participation can include drafting proposed legislation, regulations, and ordinances, or providing technical assistance to others involved in policy review and development.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Identifies public health and environmental issues that are not adequately addressed through existing laws, regulations and ordinances. Participates in the modification of existing laws, regulations and ordinances and policy development to address identified gaps.

Please answer the following questions related to model standard 6.2:

6.2A Are gaps identified in public health and environmental laws, regulations, or ordinances?

6.2B Does the EH System or program participate in the updating and/or modification of existing, or the formulation of new laws, regulations, and ordinances designed to assure and improve the public’s health and the quality of the environment that may impact human health?

Model Standard 6.3: Enforcement of Laws, Regulations, and Ordinances

The authority of the governmental organization within the EH System or program to enforce public health and environmental quality laws, regulations, and ordinances varies from state to state and between jurisdictions within states. In many communities, the local public health agency exercises

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 24

regulatory enforcement that is delegated or contracted to it by federal, state, county, or municipal government entities. In other communities, enforcement authority may be retained by the state or delegated to one or more governmental agencies outside of the local public health agency. Some communities have local environmental health enforcement created through home rule authority. Regardless of which governmental entity or entities is vested with authority and responsibility, the EH System or program as a whole must ensure effective and equitable enforcement of laws, regulations and ordinances.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Assures that all its enforcement activities are conducted in a timely manner in accordance with laws, regulations, and ordinances. Performs education, enforcement and compliance activities consistently and equitably within all geographic areas and segments of the community to ensure social and environmental equity. Informs and educates individuals, organizations, and regulated entities of the meaning and purpose of public health and environmental quality laws, regulations, and ordinances. Evaluates the compliance and responsiveness of regulated organizations and entities and makes appropriate adjustments.

Please answer the following questions related to model standard 6.3:

6.3A Does the EH System or program provide timely, consistent and equitable enforcement of environmental health protection laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies within all segments of the jurisdiction?

6.3B Does the EH System or program provide information about the meaning and purpose of public and environmental health laws, regulations and ordinances to the individuals and organizations that are required to comply with them?

6.3C Has the compliance and responsiveness of regulated organizations and entities been evaluated in the past five years?

Essential Service #7: Link People to Needed Environmental Public Health Services and Assure the Provision of Environmental Public Health Services When Otherwise Unavailable

This service includes Identifying populations with limited access or barriers to environmental public health services. Identifying environmental public health service needs of populations with limited access or barriers to a coordinated environmental health system.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 25

Assuring the linkage of people and the community to appropriate environmental public health services through coordination of services and development of interventions that address barriers to service (e.g., culturally and linguistically appropriate staff and materials).

Model Standard 7.1: Identification of Environmental Public Health Service Needs of the Population

There may be populations that have difficulty with obtaining services. The EH System or program has a responsibility to ensure all constituents have equal access to environmental health services by identifying populations with limited access to a coordinated environmental health system, anticipating some of their needs, and addressing the barriers to service (e.g., poverty, language or culture).

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Identifies populations in the community that may experience barriers to the receipt of environmental public health services. Defines environmental health service needs for the general population and for those who may experience barriers to obtaining these services.

Please answer the following question related to model standard 7.1:

7.1A Are populations with limited access or barriers to a coordinated environmental public health services identified?

Model Standard 7.2: Assuring the Linkage of People to Environmental Public Health Services

The EH System or program provides services to address identified needs by assuring a program delivery system that is timely and responsive to its constituents. In some instances, environmental health responsibilities have been fragmented and assigned to several different agencies. The EH System or program should take steps to ensure that all the agencies and entities within the environmental health system are linked through a referral network and that all constituents have equal access to all services; regardless of which governmental entity is assigned responsibility. The EH System or program supports and coordinates partnerships and referral mechanisms among the community’s environmental health and protection programs to optimize access for the entire population to needed environmental public health services. Additionally, the EH System or program seeks to create innovative partnerships with other organizations—such as professional associations, trade associations, and advocacy groups—that will help to enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of local environmental public health and environmental protection services.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 26

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Develops referral mechanisms among the community’s environmental public health and protection programs to link populations to needed services and to optimize access by populations that may experience barriers to needed environmental health services. Convenes periodic meetings among agencies responsible for environmental public health and protection to coordinate activities and agree on roles and responsibilities.

Please answer the following questions related to model standard 7.2:

7.2A Does the EH System or program have an active outreach and referral mechanism in place to link constituents to environmental public health and protection services?

7.2B Are there memorandums of understanding, or some other written agreements, among the entities with responsibility for aspects of environmental health protection within the EH System or program?

7.2C Does the EH System or program periodically convene the multiple agencies with responsibility in areas of environmental health in order to assure a program delivery system that is coordinated, timely and responsive to all constituents?

Essential Service #8: Assure a Competent Environmental Public Health Workforce

This service includes Assessment of the workforce (including agency and non-governmental workers such as private septic and water well contractors, food service managers, and others) to meet community needs for environmental public health services. Maintenance of environmental health workforce standards, including efficient processes for licensure/credentialing of professionals and incorporation into personnel systems of core competencies needed to provide the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. Adoption of continuous quality improvement and life-long learning programs for all members of the environmental health workforce, including opportunities for formal and informal public health and environmental health leadership development.

Model Standard 8.1: Workforce Assessment, Planning and Development

It is vital to have a well prepared environmental health workforce which has a fundamental understanding of environmental health and public health and which has the capacity to carry out the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. Workforce assessment is the process of determining the

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 27

competencies, skills, and knowledge of workers and the training needed to achieve community environmental health goals. It is a community process that includes the identification of those available to contribute to the provision of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services and the particular strengths and assets that each brings. Workforce assessment includes the projection of optimal numbers and types of personnel and the formulation of plans to address identified workforce shortfalls or gaps. Particular attention needs to be paid to diversification of the workforce to reflect the diversity of the community it serves.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Periodically determines the competencies, composition, demographics, and size of the environmental health workforce that provides the essential services. Identifies and addresses gaps in training and competence. Creates a workforce plan that includes documentation of findings from the workforce determination, a projection of optimal workforce numbers and the types of personnel required, and development of a plan to address environmental health needs. Distributes information from the workforce assessment to community organizations, including governing bodies, advisory groups, academic institutions, and public and private agencies, for use in strategic and operational plans.

Please answer the following questions related to Model Standard 8.1:

8.1A Are gaps within the workforce relative to the needs of the community identified?

8.1A Discussion Toolbox: In considering 8.1A, does the EH System or program have information on shortfall or gaps related to workforce? Composition? Size? Skills and/or experience? Recruitment and retention?

8.1B Is a workforce development plan in place to address gaps in workforce?

8.1.B Discussion Toolbox: In considering 8.1B, does the plan address workforce Composition? Recruitment? Competency requirements? Performance expectations? Retention incentives? Succession? Training?

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 28

8.1C Has the EH System or program established requirements for licensure, registration and certification of the environmental health workforce for relevant areas of environmental public health services such as the requirement for the REHS or RS credential?

8.1D Does the plan encourage and/or give preference to graduates of accredited undergraduate and/or graduate programs of environmental health or public health and/or to candidates with RS or REHS credentials?

8.1E Are gaps within the workforce (including but not limited to workforce training and staffing needs) communicated to key stakeholders including governing bodies, advisory groups, academic institutions, and public and private agencies?

Model Standard 8.2: Environmental Health Workforce Standards

Clear standards are established for workforce performance and are incorporated into personnel systems. Environmental health workforce qualifications include certifications, licenses, and education required by law or established by local, state, or federal policy guidelines. Additional core and specific competencies that are needed to provide the Essential Environmental Public Health Services are incorporated in written position descriptions and regular performance evaluations.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Establishes requirements for licensure, registration and certification of the environmental health workforce for relevant areas of environmental public health services, such as the requirement for the REHS or RS credential Develops, uses, and reviews job standards and position descriptions that incorporate specific competency and performance expectations for providing the Essential Environmental Public Health Services and performing the technical aspects of the position. Evaluates members of the environmental health workforce on their: demonstration of core competencies for performing their duties and responsibilities; understanding and applying the Essential Environmental Public Health Services; and understanding of the competencies specific to the principles of environmental health and public health. Develops plans to enhance individual skills and competencies through continuing education and training opportunities.

Please answer the following questions related to Model Standard 8.2:

8.2A Are environmental health workforce standards linked to job performance through clearly written position descriptions?

8.2B Is workforce performance routinely evaluated?

8.2B Discussion Toolbox: In considering 8.2B, does the evaluation assess workers’

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 29

Knowledge and understanding of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services? Skills related to the Environmental Public Health Competencies? Technical competency related to job function?

8.2C Are specific plans made to enhance individual skills and competencies?

Model Standard 8.3: Life-Long Learning through Continuing Education, Training, and Mentoring

The EH System or program benefits from a workforce engaging in lifelong learning provided through continuing education, job-related training and mentoring. Continuing education may encompass distance learning, workshops, seminars, national and regional conferences, and other activities intended to strengthen the professional knowledge and skills of employees contributing to the provision of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. Experienced mentors and coaches are available to less experienced staff to provide advice, assist with skill development, and offer other needed career resources. Opportunities are available for staff to work with academic and research institutions, particularly those connected with schools of public health, accredited undergraduate and graduate programs of environmental health science, and public administration. Through these academic linkages, the environmental health workforce, faculty, and students are provided opportunities for relevant interaction which enriches both settings.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Identifies continuing education and training needs and encourages opportunities for environmental health workforce development. Provides incentives (e.g., improvements in pay scale, release time, tuition reimbursement) for the environmental health workforce to pursue education and training. Evaluates the impact of training on workforce skills and competencies, and modifies individual training plans accordingly.

Please answer the following questions related to Model Standard 8.3:

8.3A Are there continuing education opportunities available that address the specific needs of the environmental health workforce?

8.3B Are there incentives provided (e.g., improvements in pay scale, release time, tuition reimbursement) for the workforce to pursue education and training?

Model Standard 8.4: Environmental Health Leadership Development

Leadership for improvement in community environmental health may be provided by the governmental public health entity, state/local environmental quality and environmental protection agencies, and may

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 30

emerge from the public and private sectors or the community, or may be shared by multiple stakeholders. The governmental environmental health entity encourages the development of leadership capacity that is inclusive, representative of community diversity, and respectful of the community’s perspective.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Provides formal (e.g., educational programs, leadership institutes) and informal (e.g., coaching, mentoring) opportunities for leadership development for environmental health among potential emerging leaders at all organizational levels. Recognizes the importance of succession planning for critical leadership positions.

Please answer the following questions related to Model Standard 8.4:

8.4A Are there formal or informal opportunities for leadership development?

8.4B Does the EH System or program actively identify and invest in future environmental health leaders?

Essential Service #9: Evaluate Effectiveness, Accessibility, and Quality of Personal and Population-Based Environmental Public Health Services

This service includes Assessing the accessibility and quality of services delivered and the effectiveness and accomplishment of programs provided. Providing information necessary for allocating resources and reshaping programs and/or services.

Model Standard 9.1: Evaluation of Environmental Public Health Services

There is a process in place for continually improving environmental public health services. This process includes an evaluation of the effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of services as well as progress toward program goals. The EH System or program establishes its own benchmarks and criteria for performance (e.g., related to the EH System or program’s strategic and operational plans) and/or uses externally established performance criteria (e.g., Healthy People 2010 objectives) to evaluate local conditions against a set of specific indicators for environmental public health services. The evaluation of environmental public health services includes analysis of environmental health outcomes—including environmentally-related illness, environmental indicators, and environmental risk factors known to contribute to illness and injury— service utilization, and community satisfaction in order to assess program effectiveness, and to provide information to allocate resources and reshape programs.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 31

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Evaluates environmental public health services against established criteria for performance, including the extent to which program goals and objectives are achieved for these services with a focus on outcome and improvement (e.g., decreased rate of illness and injury, decrease in critical factors, decrease in exposure) in addition to the number of services/inspections provided. Routinely assesses or evaluates its activities to seek improvement in services and outcomes; this process includes determining the effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of services. Assesses community satisfaction with environmental public health services and programs through a broad-based process, which includes stakeholders and residents who are representative of the community and groups at increased risk of environmental exposures and negative health outcomes. Utilizes findings of the evaluation to modify plans and program activities to address identified deficiencies.

Please answer the following questions related to Model Standard 9.1:

9.1A Are environmental public health programs and services routinely evaluated with a focus on accomplishments and achievement of program goals?

9.1A Discussion Toolbox: In considering 9.1A, does the evaluation include a review of Health outcomes? Environmental quality? Environmental indicators? Frequency of violations (other than the number of inspections)? Targets for effectiveness? Goals for access to services? Quality standards for service (e.g., state licensure)?

9.1B Is an assessment completed that measures the satisfaction of stakeholders and residents with environmental public health services?

9.1B Discussion Toolbox: In considering 9.1B, does the assessment Gather input from broad cross-segment of the community? Determine if needs are being met, including the groups at increased risk? Determine satisfaction with responsiveness to complaints or concerns? Identify areas where services could be improved?

9.1C Is an action plan in place and implemented to address needed improvements to services and policies identified through evaluations?

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 32

Model Standard 9.2: Evaluation of Local Environmental Health System

A range of public, private, and voluntary entities, as well as individuals and informal associations, contribute to the delivery of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services within an EH System or program. The EH System or program evaluates the performance of these entities in working together to address environmental health issues and outcomes. The governmental environmental health entity takes a lead role in convening a collaborative evaluation process.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Identifies public and private entities that contribute to the delivery of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services. Assesses the effectiveness of communication, coordination and linkage among the various entities that contribute to the delivery of the Essential Environmental Public Health Services in an EH System or program.

Please answer the following question related to Model Standard 9.2:

9.2A Has the EH System or program evaluated the effectiveness of the multiple agencies with responsibility in areas of environmental health in terms of their coordinated and timely responses to all constituents?

9.2A Discussion Toolbox: In considering 9.2A, does the evaluation consider effectiveness of Communication and information exchange? Coordination of services? Linkage between programs and/or agencies? Use of resources?

Essential Service #10: Research for New Insights and Innovative Solutions to Environmental Public Health Problems

This service includes Identification of research needs and a continuum of innovative solutions to environmental health problems including practical field-based efforts to foster change in environmental public health practice and to develop best practices of environmental public health services. Establishing linkages with institutions of higher learning and research. Maintaining capacity to undertake timely policy analyses and systems research.

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 33

Model Standard 10.1: Fostering Innovation

The EH System or program fosters innovation by adopting a philosophy of learning and encouraging employee involvement in research through awards and other forms of recognition.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program: Enables staff to identify research needs and new solutions to environmental health problems in the community by being given the time and resources to pilot test or measure the effectiveness of new or existing practices. Researches and monitors best practice information from other agencies and organizations at the local, state, and national level; applies information or best practices to program activities. Initiates and/or participates in research that contributes to improved environmental health system performance including best practices research.

Please answer the following questions related to model standard 10.1:

10.1A Are environmental health staff encouraged and supported to identify new or innovative solutions to environmental health problems?

10.1A Discussion Toolbox: In answering 10.1A, consider the following, does the EH System or program Provide time and resources for staff to pilot test or conduct studies to determine new solutions? Publish results of staff research? Recognize staff (e.g., in performance reviews or through awards)?

10.1B Is environmental health staff encouraged and supported in identifying areas needing additional research to improve services and conditions?

10.1C Are best practices for environmental public health services routinely identified and applied to program activities?

10.1D Does the EH System or program initiate and/or participate in research that contributes to improved environmental health system performance?

Model Standard 10.2: Linkage with Institutions of Higher Learning or Research

The EH System or program establishes a wide range of relationships with institutions of higher learning and research organizations. These relationships are mutually beneficial for research, continuing education, and practical training. Research relationships can occur with schools and programs of public health or with schools and programs of environmental health science as well as the public. Linkages are established with other research organizations, such as federal and state agencies, associations, research

Environmental Public Health Performance Standards (v. 2.0), 1/7/2010 Page 34

organizations, institutions of higher learning and research departments or divisions of business firms. Links are established with one or more institutions of higher learning and/or research organizations to cosponsor continuing education programs.

To accomplish this, the EH System or program Partners with institutions of higher learning or research organizations as well as the public to conduct research activities related to the Essential Environmental Public Health Services and to improvements to the practice of environmental health.

Please answer the following question related to model standard 10.2:

10.2A Does the EH System or program partner with institutions of higher learning or research organizations as well as the public to conduct research related to environmental health?

10.2A Discussion Toolbox: In considering 10.2A, does the research Relate to the Essential Environmental Public Health Services? Aim to improve the practice of environmental public health? Include the community in discussions about environmental health research?

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

ARTIFICIAL MEAT


Artificial meat 'made in a giant vat' could solve global food shortage

Artificial meat “made in a giant vat” could be the best solution to the problems of feeding the world’s growing population, scientists said.

Artificial meat 'made in a giant vat' could solve global food shortage Photo: ALAMY By Andy Bloxham 8:28AM BST 16 Aug 2010

Follow Andy Bloxham on Twitter

Comment

Over 9 billion people are expected to inhabit the planet by 2050 and the challenge of providing them with enough food to live without destroying the environment is increasingly tough.

Dr Philip Thornton, of the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, said: “One [solution] is artificial meat, which is made in a giant vat.”

He added that another could be the use of nanotechnology, or molecular engineering, to deliver medication to livestock, which could increase their efficiency.

The Bogus $1 Million Meat Prize

Why PETA's artificial chicken contest is nothing but a publicity stunt.

By Daniel Engber

Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2008, at 7:12 AM ET

Read William Saletan's "Human Nature" column on the fake meat prize.

Fake chicken could now be worth $1 million. In the last few days, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals announced that it will present a $1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate a major breakthrough in the technology of lab-grown meat: Contestants have until 2012 to produce a commercially viable, in vitro chicken substitute that tastes just like the real thing

Other answers put forward were: increased yields from plants due to higher levels of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on which they feed; genetic modification; lowering food waste by encouraging people only to buy what they will use; or by developing food technology so agriculture produces less greenhouse gases.

However, some scientists warned that progress could be hindered by the amounts of information being controlled by some big multinationals in the sector, such as Monsanto

The X-Poultry Prize has already generated high expectations. In its press release, PETA suggests that in vitro farms will spare the "more than 40 billion chickens, fish, pigs, and cows" that are killed every year in the United States. My colleague William Saletan promised Slate readers that "animals were only the first incarnation of meat. Get ready for the second." I'm not so bullish. We might be eating test-tube McNuggets at some point in the next 10 or 20 years, but it's hard to see how PETA's $1 million will help to get us there.


Related in Slate

Catherine Rampell wondered whether we should junk the patent system in favor of science prizes all around. Steven E. Landsburg proposed that the government buy out certain patents and place inventions in the public domain. Chris Suellentrop explained whether you can patent a life form, and Brendan I. Koerner explored whether you can patent the Internet.To understand why, let's back up and think about what a science prize is supposed to do. In theory, a cash incentive encourages private companies to pursue research that doesn't have a clear financial reward. For example, a pharmaceutical company might not have much reason to invest in treating a disease of the developing world, like malaria. A patent on a malaria vaccine would be a great boon for global health, but it wouldn't be worth that much money since the people who need it most can't afford to pay

Science prizes can also encourage intermediate breakthroughs that don't have an immediate commercial application. The Orteig Prize offered $25,000 to anyone who could fly nonstop from New York to Paris. The commercial aviation industry would eventually be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but when Charles Lindbergh made the trip in 1927, the prize itself was the payoff.

So what's wrong with the PETA prize? You need to sell your product in order to win. According to the contest guidelines (PDF), the million-dollar meat must be available in stores to qualify for the cash. Fake-chicken entrepreneurs have to demonstrate a "commercial sales minimum" at a "comparable market price"; in plain English, they need to move 2,000 pounds of the stuff at supermarkets and chain restaurants spread out across 10 states during a period of three months. And the Franken-meat can't cost more than regular chicken.

That means PETA won't be content with any intermediate (and not immediately profitable) breakthrough, like the development of lab-grown chicken that tastes as good as the natural stuff. Instead, the organization will hold the purse until a "commercially viable" product hits the market. In other words, you can't win the $1 million unless you're already in position to make a profit. At that point, a science prize doesn't provide much incentive for innovation. It's more like a small bonus.

To make matters worse, PETA's commercial requirements saddle researchers with demands that have nothing to do with science. Any company that wants to sell artificial chicken for public consumption will probably face a lengthy government-review process. Consider that it took five years for the Food and Drug Administration to approve the sale of cloned meat. Let's say you invented a perfect chicken substitute tomorrow—something so delicious and inexpensive that it could go into production right away. Even then, you still might not make the PETA deadline for supermarket sales.

By comparison, the contests sponsored by the X Prize Foundation have no such requirements. To win the Google Lunar X Prize, a team of engineers must put a robot on the moon. They don't need to put it on sale in the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog. The Progressive Automotive X Prize, announced last month, will go to the developers of a car that gets more than 100 miles per gallon. They must also demonstrate that their car is "production capable"—i.e., that it won't cost much more than $75,000 to make one—and they need to "articulate clear and viable business cases for bringing their vehicles to market." But they don't have to start selling them at the local dealership.

The PETA prize may turn out to be a minor boon for lab-meat research, insofar as it generates publicity for the project. (When everyone starts talking about artificial chicken, private investors will take notice.) But it's hard to imagine that the $1 million will itself provide much incentive. As a science prize, it just feels a little fake.

Artificial meat would be a preferable alternative to the cruelty and environmental impact of factory farms

Technology is rapidly emerging that will allow scientists to grow artificial meat for human consumption. Yes, this will be just like meat at a molecular level, except it won't come from an animal. It will come from a factory where it was grown cell by cell on a lattice structure using some advanced technology. This article is about the implications about such technology in terms of society, public health, ethical treatment of animals, and other such topics. But let me begin it by saying up front that I cautiously support the artificial growing of meat for a number of (possibly surprising) reasons that I will detail here.

First of all, let me state that my diet currently consists of very little meat. I don't believe in eating animals for their flesh. I don't believe in raising animals and slaughtering them just because their muscle tissue is something I want to consume casually at a Friday barbecue. I think it's highly unethical to treat animals as life-support systems for meat, which is really the way most people look at a cow -- it's just there to support the growth of the meat. There's no consideration whatsoever for the experience of the cow which is, of course, a living, breathing being with a consciousness. Cows have memory, emotions and even their own family members. I don't think it is appropriate in any advanced civilization to be raising and slaughtering animals to consume their meat. It's a rather barbaric practice.

That's one reason why I support the artificial meat idea, because if we can create meat and make it available to consumers without having to kill animals in the process, then we are in fact doing far less harm to the world. We're causing less suffering. We are not putting these animals through the experience of being enslaved in a system with the sole purpose of turning their body into a food source and, ultimately, a profit source. Let's face it -- that's what cattle ranching and pig farming and chicken farming is today. It's a system of exploiting the lives of these animals in order to make a profit. So if artificial meat can replace that, that's an important benefit. Let consumers eat meat without having to kill animals.

Health implications of artificial meat

The second reason I am strongly in support of artificial meat is because I believe that this artificial meat will actually be healthier for people than commercially grown and produced meat, because commercially produced meat comes from cows that are subjected to an assault of various chemicals. They are injected with antibiotics and hormones; they are fed grain that's been sprayed with pesticides and sometimes grown in soils laced with heavy metals. There are Polychlorinated Biphenyls, rocket fuel, and all kinds of other contaminants found in the fat cells of animals that have been raised for food.

So, if you take a cow, pig or chicken and you look at the way it's treated in a commercial ranching or farming environment, you'll find that it's a very unhealthy food source, because it has consumed and concentrated all of these toxic chemicals. When a human being consumes that meat, those toxic chemicals are ingested into that human's body, where they function as cancer-causing chemicals, liver-damaging or hormone-disrupting chemicals. By utilizing artificial meat you can consume meat that, even though it's synthetic and based on chemicals, at least won't have the concentration of heavy metals, pesticides, antibiotics and all these other terrible chemicals that cows are forced to consume.

Artificial meat could end up being healthier for people than real meat. Before you think I've gone crazy, let me explain a little further. No meat, in my opinion, is actually healthy if consumed in large quantities. There are a number of reasons for that, including the fact that meat has no fiber. It putrefies in the digestive tract and is strongly correlated with the onset of pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer and bladder cancer. We know meat isn't good for you in the quantities consumed by Americans today. I'm not saying that artificial meat will be good for you, either, but it won't be as bad for you as commercially raised meat.

The other point here is that there is such a thing as healthy, live meat from free-range animals. If you take an animal from a natural environment, fed raw plants, raw grasses, live foods, without it being subjected to antibiotics and hormones or inhumane methods of slaughter, that meat will be much healthier for you than traditionally raised beef. Still, there's no denying that this is a terrible experience for the animal. The animal is still being killed and eaten. This is not the kind of experience that any of us would wish to endure, and yet we require this of other animals so that we may feed ourselves in a mindless way the foods that we prefer to consume.

To summarize, the least healthy meat of all is commercially raised meat -- non-organic, non-free range, factory meat products. Healthier than that would be of course free-range meat, kosher-certified meat, and along the lines of similar health would be artificial meat. None of these meats, as I have stated, are in fact good for you if consumed in large quantities. I believe that meat is not necessary for the human diet, except perhaps in the case of pregnant women who need extra iron and protein. In that case, the meat serves as a very high density protein and iron source that cannot be replicated from the plant world (iron from plants is molecularly different than iron from meats). But with prenatal nutrition, it's doubly important to have organic, free-range meat that's not contaminated with pesticides and heavy metals.

Meat consumption harms the planet

There are tremendous implications resulting from the mass consumption of meat products by the American population, such as the fact that it takes 10 times as much land to create meat protein as it does similar quantities of protein from vegetables. We're also seeing the clear-cutting of rain forests, in the Amazon especially, in order to create grazing land for cattle.

The decision to eat meat is not a solely personal decision. It doesn't just affect you. It actually affects the planet. The more meat you consume, the more land is used for meat raising and harvesting. In the case of the Amazon rainforest, it means there's less land available to support natural rain forest habitat, which is, of course, important for the oxygen production of the entire planet. So, in a very understandable way, the mass consumption of red meat around this planet actually affects the climate of the planet. Global climate change is one side effects of massive meat consumption.

If we were to switch over to a system of generating artificial meat, then the climate effect of this meat production would be drastically reduced. There still may be some industrial runoff or some kind of post-production chemicals that need to be dealt with after creating artificial meat, but undoubtedly these would be far less harmful to the planet than the clear-cutting of rain forest, injecting cows with hormones and antibiotics and raising crops with pesticides so that cows can be fed in a very inefficient food production system.

So artificial meat, even though it may sound strange, could actually be better for the planet if people continue to consume meat. Now what would be best for the planet -- and actually best for the health of individuals, families and entire nations -- would be of course to move away from a meat-centered diet. If we could get people to eat half the meat they currently consume, we would see far lower rates of heart disease, all varieties of cancers, and less obesity as well. Even though the long-term solution is to move to a plant-based diet, as a civilization, a short-term solution could include artificial meat.

Many benefits from a plant-based diet

I have probably eaten more than my share of meat for my entire life already. When I was growing up, my grandfather was a cattle rancher, so we got all the free meat we ever wanted and I ate meat constantly. I have now mostly given up meat (and red meat entirely), but I don't believe in aggressively pushing vegetarianism onto others. I simply have arrived at the obvious conclusion that there's nothing better for the human body, mind and spirit than food based on plants.

If you eat nothing but a plant-based diet, you will be far healthier than if you were to introduce any amount of meat into your diet. All the information out there about people having nutritional deficiencies on a vegetarian diet is misguided and flat-out wrong. Unless, of course, for people are living on what I call a "junk food vegetarian diet," which is soda, chips and vegetarian processed food. Of course that diet causes nutritional deficiencies. But not a health-minded vegetarian diet. Even vitamin B12 is simple to get in sufficient quantities if you put your mind to it.

As a society, we can exist quite comfortably on a plant-based diet. We can get everything we need in terms of nutrition -- including essential oils, vitamins, minerals and the like -- on a plant-based diet. We do not need meat to survive as a civilization. In fact, I believe that the mass consumption of meat devolves our society, because it makes us more angry and aggressive. It makes us less humane and is an uncivilized way to use the resources of the planet to support the human population, whereas consuming and surviving on plants is an evolved and intelligent way to feed the planet. If you consume mostly raw foods, then you also get outstanding nutrition. Cooking food destroys much of its nutritional content -- not only the proteins, but also the vitamins and the phytonutrients that make plants such a potent nutrition source in the first place.

If you can avoid cooking some of these foods, and subsist at least partially on a live foods diet -- as I have been doing now for some time -- you find that you need a lot less food, get much better nutrition, and don't really need any meat. That includes even very active lifestyles like my own, which involve strength training, Pilates, lots of running, martial arts and cycling.

The bottom line is that I am a cautious supporter of this idea of artificial meat production because of the practicalities involved. People will continue to consume meat on the planet for the time being. If that is the case, then I believe that we are much better off having people consume artificial meat than tearing the flesh from living, breathing beings and calling that dinner. Artificial meat has my vote even though, personally, I would never touch it with a fork. I support it only because it is a practical alternative to meat taken from live animals

artificial-meat-grown-in-lab-on-plates-within-five-years/

ARTIFICIAL MEAT GROWN IN LAB ON PLATE WITHIN FIVE YEARS
The days when the human population ate all natural ingredients are long gone. Most foodstuffs we consume these days contain additives, preservatives, or other such chemically produced substances for reasons of taste, longevity, or cost. And soon all our food could be artificially engineered, including animal meat.

One of the ever-popular fad diets around now consists of eating food we’d have consumed thousands of years ago. So, nuts, beans, pulses, fruit, and vegetables are eaten in place of the chemically enhanced garbage many of us shove down our throats currently. Unfortunately, the human race is moving ever further away from that kind of diet, with science increasingly being turned to.

The latest move towards an artificially produced diet has now occurred in a laboratory in the Netherlands. According to The Times, Dutch scientists have grown a form of meat artificially for the first time. The meat has been described as “soggy pork” and in its current state isn’t going to turning up on the menu at your favorite restaurant. But it may do in the near future.

The researchers extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and incubated them in an animal product broth. The cells then multiplied to create muscle tissue. At the moment the result is a sticky substance that would need exercising like normal muscle to turn it into a meat we could recognize.

Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, the man leading the experiments, said

You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals. What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there. This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.

If it’s cheap then yes, they probably will, and it could be on sale within five years. However, the idea of eating artificially created meat isn’t exactly setting my taste buds on edge at this point. Then again, the sheer number of advantages by growing meat rather than breeding animals to slaughter for meat means the idea should definitely be considered.

Artificial meat would cut greenhouse gases and help the environment, animals would no longer be treated inhumanely and grown purely for food, and the lessening of livestock would free up the considerable amount of land they currently take up being farmed. Hell, even vegetarians are for the idea assuming the process was properly governed. The Vegetarian Society said:

The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.

Part of me thinks we should leave nature well alone but the advantages tell me otherwise. It all comes down to whether artificial meat will ever be accepted both in terms of taste and ethics. If so then farming could be about to be revolutionized


Fake Meat Update, or lack of


A few months ago, the Taiwanese government reportedly performed spot checks on several fake-meat "vendors" (whatever that means) and found that over half contained real animal products. Follow-up tests and investigations were promised, but have not been released or reported on so far.

While it made the briefly section in Taiwan's largest English (and in my opinion best) newspaper, the Taipei Times, and the Taiwan News (another good paper), it created somewhat of a stir in vegan circles around the world, as much if not most of the world's fake meat is made here in Taiwan. Anyone who ate fake meats at Chinese vegetarian restaurants (most of which are in fact Taiwanese, no Chinese), had to wonder whether the too-good-to-be-true fake meat actually was.

If it really was over 50%, we could expect the Buddhist population in Taiwan to be up in (peaceful) arms about it, however, no such reaction has been noticed. Then again, most of Taiwanese vegetarian dining population are not actually vegetarian, but simply eat at vegetarian restaurants at certain times, as dictated by their local customs and religions. It may be that these "vendors" were all non-vegetarian suppliers, and that food at Buddhist restaurants, if made by Buddhist companies, is safe. There is really not enough information to draw any conclusions, but certainly enough for concern.

Though I have been unable to get to the bottom of it, I have paid much more attention to the ingredients of fake meat in grocery stores. The majority contains milk (in fitting with the fact that Buddhists eat dairy products) and some contains egg (because the I Kuan Tao religion also eat egg products). It also often contains many less than healthy ingredients. It should not really be surprising that dairy, usually whey (or whey protein) is added to soy products meant to have the taste and texture of animal flesh. I highly doubt that many, if any, Chinese/Taiwanese vegetarian resaurants which promise "we use no dairy or egg" check the ingredients of their fake meat for whey. Buddhist-run restaurants probably will check the ingredients for egg, however.

One highly trustworthy exception to this rule is again, the wonderful followers of the "Supreme Master" Ching Hai, in particular their Loving Huts (website in Chinese only, but see my article on the chain here). Her followers (should that be devotees?) are strictly vegan (or fast going vegan) and owners of Loving Hutts are meticulous about checking that their ingredients are vegan.

So, in the absence of any real conclusion, but given that business in Taiwan is less than honest, most people eating vegetarian at any given time are not vegetarian themselves (all the time) and very few are vegan, I do not recommend eating fake meat from unknown sources in Taiwan (or eating anything from China at all). In Taiwan, I usually only eat fake meat at restaurants run by Ching Hai followers. For vegans abroad, inconvenient though this may be, I would not recommend eating any imported fake meats from Asia at all, and instead sticking to ones made by local veg'n companies, unless it is at a restaurant run by Ching Hai followers. Sadly, that sweet-and-sour Chicken you've been eating at your local Chinese vegetarian restaurant probably contains whey, and might just contain a little chicken, too.Vegetarian shark fin soup anyone?


Artificial Meat Could Be Grown on a Large Scale


by Fraser Cain on July 6, 2005

A magnified view of muscle fibres. Image credit: UM. Click to enlarge.

Experiments for NASA space missions have shown that small amounts of edible meat can be created in a lab. But the technology that could grow chicken nuggets without the chicken, on a large scale, may not be just a science fiction fantasy.

In a paper in the June 29 issue of Tissue Engineering, a team of scientists, including University of Maryland doctoral student Jason Matheny, propose two new techniques of tissue engineering that may one day lead to affordable production of in vitro – lab grown — meat for human consumption. It is the first peer-reviewed discussion of the prospects for industrial production of cultured meat.

“There would be a lot of benefits from cultured meat,” says Matheny, who studies agricultural economics and public health. “For one thing, you could control the nutrients. For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat.

“Cultured meat could also reduce the pollution that results from raising livestock, and you wouldn’t need the drugs that are used on animals raised for meat.”

Prime Without the Rib

The idea of culturing meat is to create an edible product that tastes like cuts of beef, poultry, pork, lamb or fish and has the nutrients and texture of meat.

Scientists know that a single muscle cell from a cow or chicken can be isolated and divided into thousands of new muscle cells. Experiments with fish tissue have created small amounts of in vitro meat in NASA experiments researching potential food products for long-term space travel, where storage is a problem.

“But that was a single experiment and was geared toward a special situation – space travel,” says Matheny. “We need a different approach for large scale production.”

Matheny’s team developed ideas for two techniques that have potential for large scale meat production. One is to grow the cells in large flat sheets on thin membranes. The sheets of meat would be grown and stretched, then removed from the membranes and stacked on top of one another to increase thickness.

The other method would be to grow the muscle cells on small three-dimensional beads that stretch with small changes in temperature. The mature cells could then be harvested and turned into a processed meat, like nuggets or hamburgers.

Treadmill Meat

To grow meat on a large scale, cells from several different kinds of tissue, including muscle and fat, would be needed to give the meat the texture to appeal to the human palate.

“The challenge is getting the texture right,” says Matheny. “We have to figure out how to ‘exercise’ the muscle cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would.”

Where’s the Beef?

And, the authors agree, it might take work to convince consumers to eat cultured muscle meat, a product not yet associated with being produced artificially.

“On the other hand, cultured meat could appeal to people concerned about food safety, the environment, and animal welfare, and people who want to tailor food to their individual tastes,” says Matheny. The paper even suggests that meat makers may one day sit next to bread makers on the kitchen counter.

“The benefits could be enormous,” Matheny says. “The demand for meat is increasing world wide — China ‘s meat demand is doubling every ten years. Poultry consumption in India has doubled in the last five years.

“With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world’s annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that’s better for the environment and human health. In the long term, this is a very feasible idea.”

Matheny saw so many advantages in the idea that he joined several other scientists in starting a nonprofit, New Harvest, to advance the technology. One of these scientists, Henk Haagsman, Professor of Meat Science at Utrecht University, received a grant from the Dutch government to produce cultured meat, as part of a national initiative to reduce the environmental impact of food production.

Other authors of the paper are Pieter Edelman of Wageningen University , Netherlands ; Douglas McFarland, South Dakota State University ; and Vladimir Mironov, Medical University of South Carolina.

Original Source: UM News Release

Article history


A sea of shoppers and vendors in Lagos, Nigeria. With the world population forecast to hit 9 billion people by 2050 novel ways to increase food production will be needed, say scientists. Photograph: James Marshall/Corbis

Artificial meat grown in vats may be needed if the 9 billion people expected to be alive in 2050 are to be adequately fed without destroying the earth, some of the world's leading scientists report today.

But a major academic assessment of future global food supplies, led by John Beddington, the UK government chief scientist, suggests that even with new technologies such as genetic modification and nanotechnology, hundreds of millions of people may still go hungry owing to a combination of climate change, water shortages and increasing food consumption.

In a set of 21 papers published by the Royal Society, the scientists from many disciplines and countries say that little more land is available for food production, but add that the challenge of increasing global food supplies by as much as 70% in the next 40 years is not insurmountable.

Although more than one in seven people do not have enough protein and energy in their diet today, many of the papers are optimistic.

A team of scientists at Rothamsted, the UK's largest agricultural research centre, suggests that extra carbon dioxide in the air from global warming, along with better fertilisers and chemicals to protect arable crops, could hugely increase yields and reduce water consumption.

"Plant breeders will probably be able to increase yields considerably in the CO2 enriched environments of the future … There is a large gap between achievable yields and those delivered ... but if this is closed then there is good prospect that crop production will increase by about 50% or more by 2050 without extra land", says the paper by Dr Keith Jaggard et al.

Several studies suggest farmers will be up against environmental limits by 2050, as industry and consumers compete for water. One group of US scientists suggests that feeding the 3 billion extra people could require twice as much water by then. This, says Professor Kenneth Strzepek of the University of Colorado, could mean an 18% reduction in worldwide water availability for food growing by 2050.

"The combined effect of these increasing demands can be dramatic in key hotspots [like] northern Africa, India, China and parts of Europe and the western US," he says.

Many low-tech ways are considered to effectively increase yields, such as reducing the 30-40% food waste that occurs both in rich and poor countries. If developing countries had better storage facilities and supermarkets and consumers in rich countries bought only what they needed, there would be far more food available.

But novel ways to increase food production will also be needed, say the scientists. Conventional animal breeding should be able to meet much of the anticipated doubling of demand for dairy and meat products in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, but this may not be enough.

Instead, says Dr Philip Thornton, a scientist with the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, two "wild cards" could transform global meat and milk production. "One is artificial meat, which is made in a giant vat, and the other is nanotechnology, which is expected to become more important as a vehicle for delivering medication to livestock."

Others identify unexpected hindrances to producing more food. One of the gloomiest assessments comes from a team of British and South African economists who say that a vast effort must be made in agricultural research to create a new green revolution, but that seven multinational corporations, led by Monsanto, now dominate the global technology field.

"These companies are accumulating intellectual property to an extent that the public and international institutions are disadvantaged. This represents a threat to the global commons in agricultural technology on which the green revolution has depended," says the paper by Professor Jenifer Piesse at King's College, London.

"It is probably not possible to generate sufficient food output or incomes in much of sub-Saharan Africa to feed the population at all adequately … For least developed countries there are prospects of productivity growth but those with very little capacity will be disadvantaged."

Other papers suggest a radical rethink of global food production is needed to reduce its dependence on oil. Up to 70% of the energy needed to grow and supply food at present is fossil-fuel based which in turn contributes to climate change.

"The need for action is urgent given the time required for investment in research to deliver new technologies to those that need them and for political and social change to take place," says the paper by Beddington.

"Major advances can be achieved with the concerted application of current technologies and the importance of investing in research sooner rather than later to enable the food system to cope with challenges in the coming decades," says the paper led by the population biologist Charles Godfray of Oxford University.

The 21 papers published today in a special open access edition of the philosophical transactions of the royalsociety.org are part of a UK government Foresight study on the future of the global food industry. The final report will be published later this year in advance of the UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico












 

Monday, April 11, 2011

Man To Make Fake Egg

Cases of problem foods and food poisoning are widely reported in Mainland China over the last few years. In 2001, there were 185 cases of food poisoning, affecting about 15,715 people and causing 146 deaths. The cases doubled in 2002. In 2003, the number of reported cases was ten times more than that in 2001, and the number of people suffered was as high as 29,660, including 262 deaths Now In Sept 2008 Nearly 53,000 Chinese children sick from contaminated milk; 4 have died


Manufacturing fake eggs
In China there are fake schools and classes that teach a variety of blatant fraud technology, even eggs can be modulated by chemical materials, but also be able to fry cook, is currently the most popular False course.



Step 1 modulation of raw materials

Using 7 kinds of chemical materials, see pic below


Fake egg was made from calcium carbonate, starch, resin, gelatin, alum and other chemical products.

Step 2 egg production

Raw egg into the mold to 2 / 3 full, put calcium chloride, colouring die, the egg appears on the film been announced.


The 'yolk' is shaped in the round mould. 'Magic water' containing calcium chloride is used.



By adding a yellow pigment and become raw egg yolk.

Step 3 fake egg shape
In the mold into 1 / 3 raw egg white, like the first package, like dumplings into the egg yolk, egg white into another, into the magic water, a shell eggs will come slowly. Naked egg shape to 1 hour to dry after washing with water, at shells ready.


To make the egg white, various ingredients, including a powder and alum, are mixed together.

Step 4
Sewing lines through the use of eggs, immersed in paraffin wax, calcium carbonate, such as modulation of the eggshell into a solution, repeated several times until the shell a little dry, immersion in cold water pumping line shape, this point, the egg has been put on a false cloak , You're done.

Hard shells are formed by soaking in paraffin wax onto the egg, which are then left to dry.


Oh yeah The Egg is ready. The artificial egg shell is very fragile and break easily but who cares!!
Look so real

Many small bubbles is formed during frying the egg but not many people can tell the difference. The egg look exactly the same, and the eggs taste better than real but you are adding to the statistic of food poisoning person.

Why make fake eggs ?

Because of money. [The cost of fake egg is only 0.55 Yuan/kg, while the true eggs’ market price is 5.6 Yuan/kg]

How To Make False Egg

Make a False Egg


From Wired How-To Wiki You have new messages (last change).
1 Keep Your Dinner Guests Guessing with a Soft-Boiled Mystery

2 False Egg Recipes

2.1 Brown Butter Hollandaise Sauce

2.2 Reheatable Hollandaise Sauce

2.3 Cauliflower Puree

2.4 False Egg



Keep Your Dinner Guests Guessing with a Soft-Boiled Mystery

Illustration by Robert HansonForget themed dinner parties. Wow your friends with a chemically goosed false egg. "I love the element of surprise," says chef Alexander Talbot, who created the recipe. "It looks just like a poached egg." The key is Methocel A4C and Methocel F50 — available online — which turn purees (here, cauliflower and hollandaise) into tasty gels that keep your guests guessing.

1 White: Puree 500 grams of cooked cauliflower. While it's still hot, stir in 5 grams of Methocel A4C. Refrigerate until cold.
2 Yolk: Prepare 400 grams of hollandaise sauce. Heat 100 grams of water to a simmer. Stir in 5 grams of Methocel F50, then blend the mixture into the sauce. Refrigerate in a squeeze bottle until cold.
3 Stretch plastic wrap over a small teacup and coat with a layer of white.
4 Squirt on a dollop of yolk.
5 Gently add another layer of white.
6 Gather the plastic wrap into a "purse" and tie with twine.
7 Drop into simmering water for about five minutes or until the packet feels firm. Snip off the plastic wrap to reveal a quivering surprise.

False Egg Recipesfunny quotes


Brown Butter Hollandaise Sauce 220g/8oz butter
35g/1.25 oz lemon juice
20g/0.7oz lime pickle
4g salt
104g/3.65oz/2 whole eggs
18g/0.63oz/1 egg yolk

Melt the butter in a small sauté pan and cook until the milk solids have turned golden brown. Remove the butter from the heat immediately and let cool slightly. Combine the remaining ingredients in a blender and puree. While the blender is running, slowly drizzle the hot brown butter into the mixture, creating a rich and creamy hollandaise sauce. It will be well seasoned because we will be diluting it by 25 percent to create the reheatable hollandaise.

Reheatable Hollandaise Sauce

370g/13oz hollandaise sauce
92.5g/3.25oz water
4.62g/0.16oz Methocel F50 (1 percent of the total weight of hollandaise and the water)

While the hollandaise sauce is still warm, bring the water to a boil. Sprinkle the Methocel over the water and whisk it into the water. When the Methocel is dispersed, turn the blender on low and slowly drizzle the water into the hollandaise sauce. Increase the speed of the blender and shear the mixture into the hollandaise sauce until it is fully incorporated and looks well blended with a slight sheen. Once the Methocel is fully dispersed, place the mixture in a bowl over an ice bath to chill. It should be chilled to 10°C/50°F and then rest in refrigeration for at least 20 minutes before using. The sauce will keep for up to two days in refrigeration.

Cauliflower Puree

420g/14.8oz cauliflower
225g/8oz milk
50g/1.75oz cream cheese
4g/0.14oz/2/3t salt
0.75% Methocel A4C

Cut the cauliflower into small pieces so that it can cook quickly. Combine the cauliflower, milk, and cream cheese in a pot and simmer until the cauliflower is soft and tender. When the cauliflower is tender put the entire mixture into a blender. Puree the mixture in a blender. Weigh the mixture in the blender (it helps to know what your blender top weighs so calculations may be made from the blender).

Weigh the hot puree and calculate 0.75 percent of the total weight. Weigh out that amount of Methocel A4C and shear it into the puree using a blender. In this recipe we end up with 450g/15.85oz of cauliflower puree and the amount of Methocel we calculated is 3.375g/0.12oz. Turn the blender onto low and increase the speed until a vortex forms in the puree. Sprinkle the Methocel into the vortex to evenly disperse it into the cauliflower puree. Be sure to puree it until the Methocel is completely dispersed and the mixture looks well blended with a slight sheen. Cool mixture to below 10°C/50°F. Let it rest in refrigeration for at least 20 minutes before using.

False Egg

Reheatable hollandaise sauce

Cauliflower puree

Cut eight squares of plastic wrap 15.25cm/6in square. Place a spoonful of cauliflower puree into the center of each piece of plastic wrap. Spread the mixture into a circle on the plastic so that it reaches to two-thirds of the edges and is 7.5mm/0.3in thick. Place a spoonful of hollandaise sauce the size of an egg yolk in the center of the cauliflower puree. Pull the edges of the plastic wrap up together pulling the cauliflower puree around the hollandaise sauce. Twist the plastic wrap so that the cauliflower encompasses the hollandaise sauce and the parcel looks like a beggars purse. Use a piece of twine to tie the plastic in place keeping the parcels shape secure. Place the tied false eggs in the freezer until ready to serve.

To heat, drop the false eggs into a water bath or a pot of water warmed to 52°C/125°F. Let the eggs cook for 10 minutes until the Methocel gels and they are heated through. The cauliflower will set and resemble the texture of an egg white while the hollandaise sauce will thicken and still be fluid.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Food safety issue MALAYSIA & INTERNATIONAL

Medicalnewstoday E. coli An Unlikely Contaminant Of Plant Vascular Systems A technique developed by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists for tracking pathogens has helped confirm that Escherichia coli is not likely to contaminate the internal vascular structure of field-grown leafy greens and thus increase the incidence of foodborne illness. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) microbiologist Manan Sharma wanted to find out if plant roots could draw in E. coli pathogens from the soil when taking in nutrients and water. He and colleagues modified several types of E. coli - including some highly pathogenic strains that cause foodborne illness - by adding a gene for fluorescence. This allowed them to track the pathogen's journey from the field to the produce Food regulation Medicalnewstoday

Calorie Labeling In Chain Restaurant Menus And Vending Machines, FDA Proposal In what is seen as a serious effort to tackle America's obesity epidemic, the FDA is proposing compulsory calorie labeling on the menus of chain restaurants, vending machines and some other food retail outlets. Members of the public, experts, associations and advocacy groups are invited to offer suggestions by visiting a specific web page. In a communiqué issued by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) yesterday, the proposal will include chain restaurants and other similar retail food outlets.The Agency would like customers to be able to view calories listed in restaurants and food retail outlets which form part of a chain consisting of at least 20 locations which trade under the same name and have substantially similar menus. Such outlets may include fast food restaurants, coffee shops, some grocery and convenience stores, and bakeries. Businesses whose main purpose of business is not food, but also sell food will not be included, such as airports, movie theatres, and sports centers (e.g. bowling alleys).The FDA is also inviting members of the public to make suggestions on anything that might improve the proposal, such as adding other types of food outlets which the current proposal may have missed out.Another proposed rule would include compulsory calorie information in food sold through vending machines. Comments are invited on both proposals.

Food research Foodproductiondaily Nano-biosensors to boost detection of foodborne pathogens- research A nano-based biosensor that could be used for early stage detection of foodborne pathogens such as E.coli and salmonella is under development by scientists in the US. Nano-based biosensor under development at Kansas State University. Researchers at Kansas State University are using carbon nanofibres (CNF) as part of the biosensors to detect the bacteria, an application which could have a huge take up in the state’s huge meat processing sector, they said. Jun Li, associate professor of chemistry, and doctoral student Lateef Syed, said they chose CNFs because they are able to form an array of tiny electrodes even smaller than bacteria and viruses. When these microbial particles are captured at the electrode surface, an electric signal can be detected. The associate professor said the technology could be brought to market in around two years.

Food regulation Foodqualitynews TB fraud prompts FSA reminder on raw milk rules The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has issued a reminder to local authorities and dairy businesses on the rules governing the sale of raw milk after some UK farmers were found to have been swapping ear tags that mark out cows infected with tuberculosis (TB).Evidence has emerged that some farmers in the South West of England and the Midlands have been illegally swapping ear tags to keep TB-positive animals in their herds and send less productive animals to slaughter.

New product development Foodnavigator Oil-hydrocolloid mix may cut trans fats without affecting quality: Study The hydrogenated fat content of bakery products may be reduced by replacing trans fats with sunflower or coconut oils, and still maintain characteristics similar to ‘full-fat’ products, says new research. Replacing hydrogenated fats with sunflower oil or coconut oil increased the polyunsaturated fat content by over 40 percent, but hydrocolloids were needed to ensure the quality characteristics of the cake. Writing in the Journal of Texture Studies, researchers from the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), India, explained that more people becoming aware of the relationship between the consumption of hydrogenated trans fats and coronary heart disease. As a result, they said that “continuous attempts” are being made by the food industry to redesign and reformulate products to eliminate or replace hydrogenated fats

General information Foodnavigator International food risk communication center formed International food safety authorities have set up a new organization with the aim of creating a collective international resource providing communication materials about food risks along the supply chain. The organization, the International Center of Excellence in Food Risk Communication (ICEFRC), includes global food and health organizations, government agencies, academic institutions, and non-profit communication experts. The founding partners include four US-based organizations – the International Food Information Council Foundation, the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the National Center for Food Protection and Defense, and the United States Department of Agriculture – as well as Health Canada, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Food safety issue (radioactive issue) Online news-thestar Japan says it may take months to end radiation leaks TOKYO (Reuters) -Japan's government warned on Sunday it may take months to stop radiation leaking from a nuclear plant crippled by a huge earthquake and tsunami three weeks ago, as more bodies were recovered in devastated areas of northeast Japan.A worker wearing a protective suit walks near the damaged pit at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 2 reactor in Fukushima prefecture, northern Japan April 2, 2011 in this handout photo released by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency on April 3, 2011. (REUTERS/Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency/Handout).An aide to embattled Prime Minister Naoto Kan said the government's priority was to stop radiation leaks which were scaring the public and hindering work on cooling overheated nuclear fuel rods

Food safety issue (radioactive issue) Online news-
bharian Jurutera gagal tutup rekahan loji TOKYO: Jurutera semalam gagal menutup rekahan yang menyebabkan air tercemar radiasi mencurah ke dalam Lautan Pasifik dari loji jana kuasa nuklear yang musnah akibat gempa bumi dan tsunami bulan lalu, namun pencarian di tapak itu tidak menemui kebocoran lain semalam. Gambar diedarkan syarikat pengendali loji, Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), menunjukkan air memancut daripada dinding dan menyembur ke laut. Air tercemar itu segera larut dengan air laut, mungkin membahayakan kepada pekerja loji itu. Lopak air di loji nuklear Fukushima Dai-ichi, yang dipercayai datangnya dari teras reaktor, berulang kali memaksa juruteknik berundur dan menangguhkan tugas.

General information Online news-
bharian Lembu keluar susu manusia LONDON: Saintis sudah mencipta ternakan yang diubah secara genetik yang menghasilkan susu 'manusia' dalam cubaan menjadikan susu lembu lebih berkhasiat. Saintis memperkenalkan gen manusia ke dalam 300 lembu tenusu untuk menghasilkan susu dengan khasiat sama seperti susu ibu. Susu ibu mengandungi kuantiti tinggi nutrisi penting yang membantu menaikkan sistem pertahanan badan bayi dan mengurangkan risiko jangkitan. Saintis di balik penyelidikan itu percaya susu dari ternakan lembu yang diubah suai secara genetik mungkin menghasilkan satu alternatif terhadap susu ibu dan susu formula untuk bayi, yang sering dikritik sebagai bermutu rendah.

Recall (allergen) FSA Sainsbury's withdraws some Freefrom Chocolate Sponge Pudding Sainsbury’s has withdrawn its Freefrom Chocolate Sponge Pudding with a'best before' date of 13 April 2011, because the product contains low levels of milk protein. Milk is not an intended ingredient and this makes the product a possible health risk for anyone who is allergic to or intolerant of milk.

Recall (allergen) CFIA

UNDECLARED PEANUTS IN CERTAIN DOCTOR'S CARBRITE DIET CHOCOLATE BROWNIE BARS OTTAWA, April 1, 2011 - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is

warning people with allergies to peanuts not to consume the Doctor's CarbRite Diet Chocolate Brownie bars described below. The affected product contains peanuts which are not declared on the label.The affected product, Doctor's CarbRite Diet Chocolate Brownie bars are sold in 56.7 g (2.00 oz) packages, bearing UPC 0 39442 08112 4 and code EXP101211.This product may have been distributed nationally.

Food regulation FSA

FDA proposes draft menu and vending machine labeling requirements, invites public to comment on proposals The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued two proposed regulations regarding calorie labeling on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants, retail food establishments, and vending machines. The FDA invites input on the proposed regulations by visiting http://www.regulations.gov1/.“These proposals will ensure that consumers have more information when they make their own food choices,” said Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Giving consumers clear nutritional information makes it easier for them to choose healthier options that can help fight obesity and make us all healthier.”

Food regulation EFSA Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 86, Revision

1 (FGE.86Rev1): Consideration of aliphatic and aromatic amines and amides evaluated by JECFA (65th meeting) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (the Panel) to provide scientific advice to the Commission on the implications for human health of chemically defined flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs in the Member States. In particular, the Panel was requested to consider the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (the JECFA) evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000, and to decide whether no further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. These flavouring substances are listed in the Register, which was adopted by Commission Decision 1999/217/EC and its consecutive amendments.The present consideration concerns 34 aliphatic and aromatic amines and amides evaluated by the JECFA (65th meeting). The Panel concluded that no corresponding FGE is available.

Recall (microb) FSIS Minnesota Firm Recalls Turkey Burger Products Due to Possible Salmonella Contamination WASHINGTON, April 1, 2011 -Jennie-O Turkey Store, a Willmar, Minn.establishment, is recalling approximately 54,960 pounds of frozen, raw turkey burger products that may be contaminated with Salmonella, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. As FSIS continues its investigation of illnesses related to this recall, additional raw turkey products may be recalled. As a result, FSIS is alerting consumers to take extra care when preparing all raw turkey products.

Food regulation EFSA Updated technical specifications for harmonised reporting of food-borne outbreaks through the European Union reporting system in accordance with Directive 2003/99/EC In the analyses of the reported data on food-borne outbreaks at the European Union level it is important to address the relevance of different food categories as outbreak vehicles and the causative agents most frequently associated with these food vehicles. This report includes an update of the technical specification for harmonised reporting of food-borne outbreaks to the European Union, which allow to better achieve their objectives. The distinction between “verified” and “possible” food-borne outbreaks is abandoned in the reporting. Member States shall report all food-borne outbreaks which meet the definition in the Directive 2003/99/EC. In case of food-borne outbreaks where no particular food vehicle is suspected and for food-borne outbreaks where the evidence implicating a particular food vehicle is weak only a limited dataset is reported. This includes the number of outbreaks per causative agent and the number of human cases, hospitalisations and deaths. A detailed dataset is to be reported for food-borne outbreaks where the evidence implicating a particular food vehicle is strong, based on an assessment of all available evidence. The information to be reported for these outbreaks includes the nature of the evidence to support the link between cases of disease in humans and the food vehicle as well as data on causative agents, food vehicles and the factors in food preparation and handling that contributed to the food-borne outbreaks. Food research MASU Lower BPA By Choosing Fresh Over Canned Foods A new study has some promising news on how we can control our exposure. It shows that we can reduce our exposure to BPA – in a relatively short period of time – simply by making some smart choices at the grocery store. The study had five families stop using canned and plastic food packaging for a few days and instead they ate organic food and meals stored in glass or stainless steel containers. After just three days, the families’ BPA levels dropped and average of 60%. However, as soon as the families went back to their regular diets, their BPA levels went up again. Food regulation MASU FDA advisers want more study of food dye-ADHD link A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee decided Thursday there is insufficient evidence to support a link between artificial dyes in foods and children with ADHD. The committee will make no recommendation to ban or regulate dye additives found in food products. But the committee did stress that there seems to be a trend with artificial dyes and side effects in children and that more research is needed.

General information consumer.healthday Research Warns of Overuse of Powerful Class of Antibiotics SUNDAY, April 3 (HealthDay News) -- The use of a powerful class of antibiotics called carbapenems has increased dramatically in the United States over the past five years, a new study shows.The increased use of these drugs -- widely regarded as the last option for treating severe infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria -- is cause for concern because carbapenem-resistant bacteria are becoming more common, the researchers said. Overuse of carbapenem drugs could lead to the reduction of their effectiveness against tough-to-treat infections.

Food regulation Foodnavigator UK pressure group backs proposed EU labelling amendment A UK pressure group against the use of processing aids in bread production is backing a proposed amendment to EU regulation that will require foods frozen, and then defrosted before sale, to be labelled ‘defrosted’. The proposed revision to the EU Food Information Regulation (FIR), adopted by the EU Council at its first reading last month, will enable greater transparency over the marketing of par baked loaves in particular, claims the Real Bread Campaign. The amendment, should it be carried, would represent a significant change to existing EU labelling laws (Directive 2000/13/EC) where you only label goods as 'defrosted' (chicken, for instance) when it is believed the absence of such a designation could potentially mislead the consumer.

Food regulation Nutraingredients Lobbying intensifies ahead of MEP omega-3 infant health claim vote Lobbying is ratcheting up ahead of next week's European Parliament (EP) vote on whether to permit a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Commission (EC)-approved claim linking omega-3 form DHA and infant eye health. Will DHA-based infant visual development claims be allowed in the European Union? Eyes will turn to the European Parliament which must vote on the matter next week.The claim submitted by infant formula maker Mead Johnson won in 2009 an EFSA positive opinion for visual development in infants up to 12 months if products contained at least 0.3 per cent of their fatty acid content in DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). The claim was then validated at EC committee level, but an EP committee last month narrowly voted to oppose it (30-28) and next week the Parliament will vote on whether to send the claim to the EU legislature or to scrap it.

Food regulation Perishablenews Gluten Free Community Seeks Resolution To Overdue FDA Labeling Regulations Columbia, MD - Prominent members of the burgeoning gluten-free community announced today a collaborative “1in133” event on May 4 to bake the world’s largest gluten-free cake as part of an effort to draw attention to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) delay in finalizing standards for gluten-free food labeling. The name is derived from the fact that one in every 133 people in the U.S. suffers from celiac disease or a gluten intolerance issue.

Food safety issue Foodsafety.net 03/04/11: Food safety in school canteen Malaysian schools are expected to provide a safe environment for children in all aspects of safety, especially food.If, like the Health Minister says, about half of all food poisoning cases occur in schools, then why hasn’t the ministry done anything about it, except talk and provide shocking figures.It is alarming that 5,496 students or almost 10 per cent of the 57,364 students, were exposed to the risk, as disclosed by Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai yesterday.

Food safety issue SCPINET Food Companies (Cosmetic) Use of Synthetic Food Dyes: The Case of Cancer and Ammonia Process Caramel in Soft Drinks OTTAWA (March 31, 2011)-Ammonia process caramela synthetic dye created by heating sugar in the presence of ammoniais used to give Coke, Pepsi, and other cola soft drinks their brown or black colour. In a letter to Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq, the Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is calling on the federal government to heed the expert opinions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and a cadre of top U.S. toxicologists who have raised serious concerns about two carcinogens created during the synthesis of ammonia process caramel, which cause an estimated two dozen cancer deaths annually in Canada.

Food safety issue Foodsafety.net 03/04/11: 16 suspects charged in pork scandal China’s top prosecution body has filed charges of breach of duty against 16 government officials implicated in a tainted pork scandal, while the alleged misdeeds of another 41 are still being probed. An official with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate confirmed to China Daily that investigations are being conducted into the actions of 12 civil servants, who include quarantine inspectors and animal-epidemic prevention coordinators in Central China’s Henan province, as well as four officials from the commerce bureau and animal health control department in East China’s Jiangsu province.The official, who asked to not be named, said prosecutors also have another 41 officials in Henan under scrutiny and have applied coercive measures against 72 farmers and brokers suspected of producing and selling tainted pork.

Food regulation CSPINET CSPI Hails Proposed Menu Labeling Regulations Ten years after starting a movement to put calories on chain restaurant menus and menu boards, the Center for Science in the Public Interest strongly supports the proposed menu labeling regulations released by the Food and Drug Administration. The new regulations are required by the health care reform law enacted last March, which requires chain restaurants with 20 or more outlets to post calories on menus and menu boards, and to provide additional nutrition information in writing upon request. The proposed rules released today are expected to be finalized by the end of the year.

Food regulation CSPINET Strong FDA Action on Food Dyes Urged I’m glad that after many years of denial, the Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the evidence linking synthetic food dyes to behavioral problems in children. Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and other dyes have no useful nutritional or preservative value; their only function is cosmetic. And by "cosmetic," I mean that dyes are often used to make junk food more attractive to young children, or to simulate the presence of a healthful fruit or other natural ingredient. Surprisingly, even foods that aren’t particularly colorful—such as instant mashed potatoes or pickles—are dyed. The evidence that these petrochemicals worsen some children's behavior is convincing, and I hope that the FDA’s advisory committee will advise the agency to both require warning notices and encourage companies voluntarily to switch to safer natural colorings. (The FDA isn't asking the committee about a ban.) Having brightly colored Froot Loops, Skittles, Mountain Dews, or pickles or anything else just isn't worth putting any children at risk.

Food safety issue Foodproductdesign No Fooling: Dead Mouse Found in Energy Drink FEDERAL WAY, Wash.—A 19-year-old Washington man is suing Hansen Beverage Company claiming he found a dead mouse in a can of Monster Energy Drink after he finished drinking it. As reported by Fox News, Vitaliy Sulzhik said he finished drinking a Monster Energy Drink that he purchased at a local supermarket and realized the can wasn’t empty. After cutting the top of the can off, he discovered a dead mouse at the bottom. The incident occurred in March 2010, and the plaintiff has pictures and lab testing to support his case. The tests revealed there was no trauma or poison involved in the mouse’s death. Sulzhik's attorney said Hansen Beverage Company has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Food regulation Foodproductdesign Resveratrol Self-Affirmed GRAS EASTON, Pa.—Fluxome announced its natural resveratrol was self-affirmed GRAS. The affirmation allows the inclusion of Fluxome Resveratrol in a range of food and beverage products. The company’s resveratrol is produced in the United States via a patented fermentation process.“The GRAS status confirms the safety and superiority of fermentation-derived products, where all process parameters are tightly controlled," said Bo Stenhuus, Ph.D., vice president compliance. “With the GRAS status in the United States, Fluxome has taken a major step forward in its process of obtaining sales approvals for Fluxome Resveratrol in other countries and regions."

Food regulation Foodproductdesign FDA Panel Opposes Warning Labels for Food Colors SILVER SPRING, Md.—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Food
Advisory Committee on March 31 voted 8-6 against recommending warning labels on foods with synthetic color additives; however, the panel did call for more studies to determine if there is a link between food colors and hyperactivity in children. As reported by Reuters, FDA will consider the committee's recommendations in the next few months and decide how to respond to the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s request to either ban food coloring or mandate warning labels.The International Food Information Council (IFIC) released a statement supporting FDA’s decision: “It was not surprised by the FDA Food Advisory Committee’s determination that artificial food colors do not cause hyperactivity in children. The scientific evidence currently does not show that food colors cause or exacerbate hyperactivity or other behavior problems in the majority of children."

Food regulation Online news-reuters UPDATE 2-US panel rejects food dye warning, asks more study SILVER SPRING, Md., March 31 (Reuters) - A possible link between artificial food dyes and hyperactivity in children warrants further study though current data is too weak to merit warning labels, a U.S. advisory panel said. An expert panel voted 8-6 on Thursday against recommending a warning on the wide range of snacks, cereals, candy, beverages and other foods brightened with artificial colors. The advisers called for more study to determine if the colors worsen hyperactivity in some kids, as a consumer group and other critics argue, keeping the door open on a debate that has concerned parents since the 1970s.