I wrote about this issue a while ago, and now the questions I pondered are being answered. The BBC reports:

A mandatory certification programme is now being developed by the US Toy Industry Association and the CPSC as part of the House of Representatives bill on consumer safety.

The plan provides for stricter procedures for analysing safety during the design and manufacturing of toys and the testing of finished products, as well as factory audits.

Sounds good, although the fact that there are huge beef recalls in recent news does not inspire a lot of confidence in the controls system proposed. In particular, I was just reading how a massive California meat recall was started after undercover video was released by the Humane Society.

The recall by the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company, based in Chino, Calif., comes after a widening animal-abuse scandal that started after the Humane Society of the United States distributed an undercover video on Jan. 30 that showed workers kicking sick cows and using forklifts to force them to walk.

[…]

The video was embarrassing for the Department of Agriculture, as inspectors are supposed to be monitoring slaughterhouses for abuse. It surfaced after a year of increasing concerns about the safety of the meat supply amid a sharp increase in the number of recalls tied to a particularly deadly form of the E. coli pathogen.

And in another case auditors discovered that their inspectors audited the wrong Chinese facility. Controls are definitely non-trivial to design and manage properly.

“The recall is obviously the big news,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society. “The longer-term problem is the inadequacies of the inspection system. How can so many downers [cows that can no longer walk] have been mistreated day after day within a U.S.D.A. oversight system that was present at the plant?

“We need more boots on the ground at the plants,” he said.

Yes, although the fact that the video on YouTube created a public outcry might suggest some technology solutions that could reduce this requirement for “boots”. Surveillance obviously has some advantages over moving bodies, especially in terms of remote locations. And the fact that surveillance, video and RFID, might also help ranchers manage their own stocks could make it a good thing for everyone. On the flip side, everyone knows that ranchers hate accuracy and measurements in the system as it shifts the balance of control away from them and into the regulators/auditors. That means higher tax and overhead implications. Like I said, controls are non-trivial to design properly.

If I asked you what a normal cooking temperature was, could you tell me within ten degrees of accuracy; what about fifty degrees of accuracy?

I am certainly not the best chef. I confess I have no idea what the exact temperature of a frying pan is when I put it on medium, or medium-high, high, etc..

Now consider the latest news from the Environmental Working Group on Teflon:

For the past fifty years DuPont has claimed that their Teflon coatings do not emit hazardous chemicals through normal use. In a recent press release, DuPont wrote that “significant decomposition of the coating will occur only when temperatures exceed about 660 degrees F (340 degrees C). These temperatures alone are well above the normal cooking range.”

I see. So the normal cooking range is below 660 degrees F. The only problem with DuPont’s reasoning is that most people probably do not know this and regularly cook above the level that they consider “normal”. Safety suddenly comes into play, and yet I would bet not a single DuPont teflon user has any idea of the risks:

In new tests conducted by a university food safety professor, a generic non-stick frying pan preheated on a conventional, electric stovetop burner reached 736°F in three minutes and 20 seconds, with temperatures still rising when the tests were terminated. A Teflon pan reached 721°F in just five minutes under the same test conditions (See Figure 1), as measured by a commercially available infrared thermometer. DuPont studies show that the Teflon offgases toxic particulates at 446°F. At 680°F Teflon pans release at least six toxic gases, including two carcinogens, two global pollutants, and MFA, a chemical lethal to humans at low doses. At temperatures that DuPont scientists claim are reached on stovetop drip pans (1000°F), non-stick coatings break down to a chemical warfare agent known as PFIB, and a chemical analog of the WWII nerve gas phosgene.

Personally, I have never liked teflon because I felt the risks were not clearly discussed or identified and so I have only bought stainless steel cookware. Come to think of it, I have not owned teflon for over fifteen years. When I first started looking for safety data and could not find anything conclusive, I steered clear. I also never understood the idea that it could peel off if you touched it with metal, like a normal fork or spoon. What kind of “hard” surface requires you to replace all your cutlery?

This general unease now turns out to be well founded.

Unless you can monitor your temperatures and/or install controls to keep teflon below 660 degrees F, there are some serious health risks to consider. I guess I will stick to stainless steel for now (pun intended).

The NYT reports that the fish being served in their fair city has toxic levels of mercury:

Sushi from 5 of the 20 places had mercury levels so high that the Food and Drug Administration could take legal action to remove the fish from the market. The sushi was bought by The New York Times in October.

“No one should eat a meal of tuna with mercury levels like those found in the restaurant samples more than about once every three weeks,” said Dr. Michael Gochfeld, professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, N.J.

Yikes. Perhaps most notable is that the restaurant owners had no idea they were serving toxic fish. Will they test at the market? Will fish markets test before selling? Where will the controls emerge? What if restaurant guides like Zagat started to include toxicity tests in their reviews and award cleanliness? Or will consumers be expected to carry a toxicity test when they eat out or even shop at the grocery?

Will someone please market a sushi preparedness kit? A pair of organic-based chopsticks, chemical free soy sauce, natural wasabi, and a box that you can drop your food into to assess mercury levels before you put it into your mouth. Ok, just kidding. But you get the idea.

Update: Apparently Greenpeace offers a $25 mercury do-it-yourself test kit.

The results are in, and the findings are worse than we anticipated: one in five women of childbearing age that were tested have mercury levels exceeding the EPA’s recommended limit.

“In the samples we analyzed, the greatest single factor influencing mercury exposure was the frequency of fish consumption,” said Dr. Steve Patch, Co-director of EQI and co-author of the report. “We saw a direct relationship between people’s mercury levels and the amount of store-bought fish, canned tuna fish or locally caught fish people consumed.”

Yikes again. Is this Department of Homeland Security material? Or will this be left up to the EPA to sort out?