COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIACALIFORNIA POULTRY LETTERMarch 1998In This Issue:
USDA SEEKS COMMENTS ON NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM PROPOSED RULE (We have 6 information sheets available on the proposed "USDA National Organic Program". We can send you copies by mail, or FAX. For copies telephone 530/752-3513 or e-mail raernst@ucdavis.edu.)The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking comments on a proposal to establish a National Organic Program (NOP or program). The program is proposed under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA or Act), as amended, which requires the establishment of national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced to facilitate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced and to assure consumers that such products meet consistent standards. This program would establish national standards for the organic production and handling of agricultural products, which would include a National List of synthetic substances approved for use in the production and handling of organically produced products. It also would establish an accreditation program for State officials and private persons who want to be accredited to certify farm, wild crop harvesting, and handling operations that comply with the program's requirements, and a certification program for farm, wild crop harvesting, and handling operations that want to be certified as meeting the program's requirements. The program additionally would include labeling requirements for organic products and products containing organic ingredients, and enforcement provisions. Further, the proposed rule provides for the approval of State organic programs and the importation into the United States of organic agricultural products from foreign programs determined to have equivalent requirements. How to CommentInterested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposal to: Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator, USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 4007-So., Ag Stop 0275, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456. Comments also may be sent by fax to (202) 690-4632. Additionally, comments may be sent via the Internet through the National Organic Program's homepage at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. Comments must be submitted on or before March 16, 1998. Anyone with internet access who wishes to comment, will find it very convienent to acccess the internet web site above. Organic Livestock Production Requirements§205.12 Origin of livestock.§205.13 Livestock feed.§205.14 Livestock health care.§205.15 Livestock living conditions and manure management.Livestock Production Substances§205.24 Active synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production.Any substance in the following categories may be used in organic livestock production in accordance with any restrictions specified in this section and §§ 205.3, and 205.12 through 205.15 of subpart B: §205.25 Non-synthetic substances prohibited for use in organic livestock production.None FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael I. Hankin, Senior Agricultural Marketing Specialist, USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 2510-So., P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 690-3924. Summary Prepared By: The 2nd International Symposium on Egg Nutrition and Newly Emerging Ovo-BiotechnologiesThis meeting will be held in the Banff Center, Banff, Alberta, Canada on April 5-8, 1998. The event, which is held every three years, is one of a kind in the North American Hemisphere. Topics will be presented and discussed from both the scientific and commercial point of view by delegates from the Pacific Rim, Europe and the American continent. Five sessions will be held in the symposium:
The conference host town of Banff is a resort town in the Canadian Rockies amidst some of the world's most spectacular scenery. The town is about a 40 minute drive from the Calgary Airport. For more details, contact Linda Callan at: Phone (403) 492-0169 It's Still the Cholesterol and Saturated Fat!(Personal Opinion of Dr. Gideon Zeidler, D.Sc/MBA, Food Engineering Specialist,University of California,Riverside, California) The Dairy Industry enjoys the best of two worlds. On one hand, it is the major contributor of saturated fats to the American diet, distant by far from foods shown in table 1 and about seventeen times more than the egg's contribution! It is also a close second to eggs in adding cholesterol to the food chain. Yet the dairy industry does not receive a "bad rap" from the media or medical professions. Instead, the message the dairy industry delivers through promotion is about providing magnificent health for all ages, great achievements of users, good times, an all "natural" product and the enjoyment of a large variety of products. Consumption of Dairy Products, like other animal products, is restricted in the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization dietary recommendations. However, the American Heart Association (AHA), one of the most respected authorities on food and health in the US, does not specifically recommend limiting the use of dairy products, like it does eggs, but rather actively endorses selected products such as low fat yogurt and skim milk. I have observed that the dairy industry is flourishing and profitable, especially in California which has passed Wisconsin as the largest dairy state in the country. Dairy is also the leading commodity in terms of value in California, the largest agricultural state. This good fortune is not shared with the egg industry, which sells a product with a similar nutritional profile. For years, eggs were viciously attacked by the media and consumer groups. The AHA recommendation drastically limited egg consumption to 4 per week and physicians added to the problem by prescribing even harsher restrictions for their patients. For decades, egg consumption has steadily declined (for various reasons) and profits from shell eggs were not something to write home about. The egg industry successfully fought back by showing that normal, healthy people can eat more eggs than recommended without significantly raising their blood serum cholesterol levels. This helped to stabilize and even slightly increase egg consumption in 1996 and 1997, and to get positive responses from the media including the New York Times. However, this did not change the minds of the American Heart Association or physicians . In the United States we have 90 million people with a cholesterol level of 200+, nine million diabetics, millions more with high blood serum triglycerides and LDL, many heart attack patients and other sensitive groups. Many people in these groups are not aware of their problem. With the magnitude of this problem health authorities are very cautious about increasing cholesterol and saturated fat limits in recommended diets for the general public. Therefore, I do not expect significant policy changes by the medical profession regarding egg consumption in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, Americans already eat much more fat, saturated fat and cholesterol than is recommended in dietary guidelines and arteriosclerosis is widespread in all segments of the population. Tragically, many children as young as 8-10 years old are affected. So what makes the big difference between the two industries? The magic words are "providing choices" backed by a large variety of products. Both the dairy and the broiler industries provide thousands of products with fat and cholesterol levels ranging from trace amounts to high levels. These products also feature convenience, taste, attractive appearance, functional and beautiful packaging, and attractive price/value ratios. Table 1. The Fat, Saturated Fat and Cholesterol* Contribution of Certain Animal Products to the U.S. Diet in 1996**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Annual mg Chol- Satur- Total Total Total Sat-
Production esterol ated Choles- Fat urated
(billions) per 1 Fat fat terol (mill. Fat
Kg food (%) (%) (met. ton) ton) (mill. ton) tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Milk+ 154.3 lb 175 3.7 2.4 12,176 2.60 1.680
Broilers 26.8 lb 527 6.0 1.6 6,425 .74 .200
Eggs
Consumed++ 61.36 eggs 3707 7.0 2.3 13,192 .25 .082
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cholesterol from the three foods represents 320 mg/per capita/day.
** Import and export were not calculated.
+ Fresh milk production reflects all dairy products produced.
++ Calculated as large eggs, 58 grams, 215 mg cholesterol.
Unfortunately, the egg industry does not provide these kinds of choices, nor the variety of products available from the dairy industry. Egg substitutes, now a $250 million industry, were the first step in the right direction, but they are still a poor "medicinal" product and have not changed much since their introduction. A new product (made with some yolk) has just been introduced into the market by Papeti Highgrade, Inc. which provides 80% reduction of fat and cholesterol with improved taste and functional characteristics. This company has also introduced a sunny-side-up egg substitute. It is still too early to evaluate the success of these products. The food industry, including dairy and poultry meat, has responded strongly to consumer demand by developing fat-free, low fat, low cholesterol products which represent a $15 billion market segment. The major disadvantage of these products is that many are high in calories and, despite all the effort, the average American is still getting heavier. With low to moderate caloric content and superior protein quality, the potential of eggs in this profitable and lucrative niche market is not well exploited! When a product line can satisfy the needs of various consumers and those of health agencies, saturated fat and cholesterol levels will cease to be an issue. This issue will then be left to the scientific community to investigate and will have much less impact on egg marketing and egg consumption. Regardless of the outcome of future investigations about dietary cholesterol, saturated fat and health, the egg industry will have products to meet consumer demands. The egg industry should also benefit from being more removed from this controversy about diet and health. It is quite evident that health groups are willing to encourage and endorse animal product industries that are committed to providing healthy alternatives. The Egg Industry could benefit by following the ancient adage "If you can't beat em, join em." Providing consumer satisfaction through product development is what the food industry knows and does best! If the task is too big for individual companies, then joint industry efforts should be made in developing these concepts. This approach will also improve the image of the egg and egg products industry. It cost the beef industry one-third of their market share to learn this lesson from the broiler industry. The US egg industry has also lost about one third of egg consumption since its peak in the post WWII era. Despite the complexity of egg product development, it is time for the egg industry to adopt the market strategies which brought success to the dairy industry. Gideon Zeidler Ralph Ernst, March Editor |