Nearly 60 Million Cans Of Salmon Were Once Recalled Due To Faulty Equipment In Alaska
The issue was traced back to multiple salmon canning facilities across Alaska, and the subsequent investigation found that a malfunctioning piece of machinery was creating punctures and other types of defects in the canned salmon being produced, which resulted in the growth of bacteria. A Belgian man who ate the affected salmon succumbed to the effects of botulism, a type of food-borne illness capable of causing paralysis of the muscles, breathing issues, and loss of life. While the man's wife also grew sick after eating Alaskan salmon, she presumably recovered, and no other illnesses were reported. What resulted from the incident was a massive effort from the salmon industry to eliminate defective cans and upgrade quality measures to prevent future mishaps.
Read more: 17 Canned Sardine Brands Ranked Worst To Best
While the exact technique will vary from company to company, virtually all canned salmon brands use a similar process when preparing their fish. First, the salmon is prepped via filleting, skinning, and slicing, at which point the meat is deposited into cans and sent to seaming machines, where the lids are attached. From there, the cans are sent to a pressure cooker and heated for a specific amount of time and to a certain temperature to ensure the meat is fully cooked. This heating process eliminates harmful bacteria and ensures that the canned salmon is a ready-to-eat product.
With so many steps and so many types of machinery involved, canning equipment malfunctions like the one that occurred in 1982 are often hard to anticipate and even harder to prevent. Problems with commercial canning equipment have affected other types of fish, as illustrated by our list of the biggest tuna recalls in U.S. history. Major brands like Bumble Bee and Tri-Union Seafoods are no strangers to equipment malfunctions that can increase the risk of bacterial growth within products. Consumers must be proactive about food recalls, but knowing which brands offer the highest quality is also helpful. That's why we compiled a ranking of canned salmon brands from worst to best to guide your shopping decisions the next time you get a craving for this tasty tinned fish.
Read the original article on Mashed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
4 days ago
- CNN
US to burn $9.7 million worth of USAID-purchased contraceptives rather than deliver them to women overseas
The Trump administration is set to destroy $9.7 million worth of US-purchased contraceptives rather than deliver them to women overseas, following the dismantling of foreign assistance programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development, or USAID. The 'preliminary decision' to destroy the USAID-procured birth control was confirmed by a State Department spokesperson, who said the cost of incinerating them would be $167,000. The contraceptives have been housed in a warehouse in Geel, Belgium. The Belgian foreign ministry said it was engaged in diplomatic talks with the US embassy to work to find alternative solutions for the supplies. Asked about whether the contraceptives will definitely be destroyed, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said on Tuesday that it is a 'situation that changes each day.' 'We recognize the issues, but we also, of course, are committed to policy that Americans care about,' she said at a briefing. The contraceptives are mostly long-lasting types of birth control, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and injectables, a US congressional aide told CNN. It is not clear exactly when the supplies will be destroyed, according to the aide. 'They have to double incinerate the products because they contain high levels of hormones and they don't want to risk leaking the byproducts out in the environment, which likely adds to the cost,' the congressional aide said. 'The Trump administration is quite literally burning taxpayer money.' A list of the supplies, shared with CNN by another source with knowledge of the warehouse stock, shows that the contraceptives include copper IUDs, rod implants, birth control injections, and levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets. Some have USAID branding but the majority do not, according to the source's list. Most of the products expire in 2028 or 2029, with the earliest expiration date among the products in April 2027, according to the list detailing the nearly 5 million items. The US State Department spokesperson referred to the contraceptives to be destroyed as 'certain abortifacient birth control commodities from terminated Biden-era USAID contracts.' There is controversy about whether to describe certain contraceptives as abortifacient, or causing abortion, due to the debate over whether life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized or at a later stage. Some birth control methods, including IUDs, may work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. However, IUDs primarily work by suppressing the release of eggs, or by preventing sperm from reaching an egg. 'Only a limited number of commodities have been approved for disposal. No HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed,' the spokesperson added. 'USAID avoided an additional $34.1 million in taxpayer costs by negotiating no-cost cancellations of pending orders placed under the Biden Administration.' The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) told CNN that there is 'no such thing as an abortifacient contraceptive.' 'By definition, contraceptives prevent pregnancy – not end a pregnancy. IUDs and other forms of birth control do not cause abortion, and any suggestion otherwise is misinformation,' ACOG said on Tuesday. Responding to media reports that the contraceptives were set to be transferred to a French medical waste facility to be destroyed by the end of July, a diplomatic source in France told CNN that the contraceptives were being handled by private entities and they had 'no information concerning any transfers,' as of Thursday last week. 'We firmly support the Belgian authorities' commitment to find a solution in order to prevent the destruction of these contraceptives, so that they may reach women and men around the world who need them and are waiting for them,' the diplomatic source added. 'Access to quality sexual and reproductive health services and products is both a human rights and a public health issue.' US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a staff member to the warehouse in Belgium as part of her effort to introduce legislation prohibiting 'the destruction of any such commodities unless all efforts to sell or donate them have been exhausted.' The staffer also found that the earliest expiration date for the contraceptives was 2027, with some of the supplies not expiring until 2031, meaning they could still be used for years to come. 'At a moment when the Trump administration has made devastating cuts to foreign assistance it is disappointing that the State Department would sign off on spending money to actually destroy paid-for commodities that would save lives and are waiting to be deployed,' Shaheen said in a statement. 'Food and family planning commodities are desperately needed in conflict affected countries, like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo where famine is taking hold.' Belgian foreign ministry spokeswoman Florinda Baleci told CNN the country was 'exploring all possible avenues to prevent the destruction of these stocks, including their temporary relocation.' An organization called MSI Reproductive Choices said it and other funding partners had offered to pay for the shipping and repackaging of the USAID-branded supplies, but that the US government turned down the offer. 'We were not given a reason for why this offer was not accepted, but it became clear in conversations that it wouldn't be and that our efforts would be better spent finding alternative solutions to the contraception supplies gap,' said Grace Dunne, a spokeswoman for MSI, which works in 36 countries to provide reproductive healthcare, including abortion services, contraception and maternity care. In response to questions about the offer from CNN, the State Department highlighted the so-called 'Mexico City policy,' which 'prohibits providing certain assistance – directly or indirectly – to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.' That policy, which opponents call the 'global gag rule,' prevents non-governmental organizations that provide abortions, give counseling about abortions or advocate for safe access to abortion from receiving US funding. The planned destruction of the contraceptives has sparked an outcry from other organizations, like Doctors Without Border (MSF), which raised concerns about contraceptive shortages in nations that were once reliant on supplies donated by USAID. 'In the communities served by MSF – whether impacted by conflict, disease outbreaks, natural and human-made disasters, or exclusion from health care – access to contraceptives is already constrained,' the organization said in a statement. 'Contexts that previously relied upon USAID funded contraceptive supplies are at a heightened risk of supply chain disruptions and stockouts.' 'MSF has seen firsthand the positive health benefits when women and girls can freely make their own health decisions by choosing to prevent or delay pregnancy – and the dangerous consequences when they cannot,' the chief executive of MSF USA, Avril Benoît, added. MSF also cited reports saying that more USAID-branded contraceptives are being housed in a warehouse in the United Arab Emirates, but the organization said the US government's plan for those supplies is unknown. A State Department spokesperson did not address a question about contraceptives warehoused in the UAE. CNN has reached out to the UAE government for comment. At the beginning of July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the end of USAID, saying that future foreign assistance programs would align with administration policies and be administered by the State Department. The rapid dismantling of USAID, led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has seen thousands of foreign assistance programs slashed, including many that focused on lifesaving work. A study published earlier this month by a leading medical journal, The Lancet, estimated that the USAID funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030. USAID funding was most likely to reduce mortality related to HIV/AIDS, followed by malaria, according to the study. This story has been updated with additional developments.
WebMD
4 days ago
- WebMD
Why BMI Still Won't Die
July 29, 2025 — The body mass index was born in judgment. Its creator, the 19th-century Belgian astronomer and statistician Adolphe Quetelet, believed that greatness arose from averageness. The closer an individual was to the average size and shape of their time and place, the closer they were to perfection. Any sports fan instantly sees the flaw in this logic: How boring would basketball be if the average NBA player was 5-foot-9 instead of 6-foot-7? But it gets worse: Quetelet asserted that the further someone deviated from the population average, the more flawed they were. First, however, he had to figure out what 'average' was. Starting with a database of measurements from Scottish soldiers, Quetelet developed a formula of weight (in kilograms) divided by height (in meters) squared. More than a century later, in 1972, legendary nutrition scientist Ancel Keys coined a new name for Quetelet's formula: body mass index, or BMI. What was conceived in judgment remains quite judge-y. BMI continues to serve as a demarcation between a 'normal' or 'healthy' body weight (a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9) and the deviance of being 'overweight' (a BMI of 25 to 29.9) or 'obese' (a BMI of 30 or more). Today, there's nothing 'normal' about a sub-25 BMI. Not when the average American adult has a BMI of 30 — just a couple of sandwiches past 'overweight' —and the CDC estimates that 42% of U.S. adults have obesity. That's why, over the past decade, a growing number of doctors and scientists have argued that BMI as a health metric is past its sell-by date. But before we talk about what's wrong with BMI and what health professionals can use instead, we need to look at how it became so ubiquitous and what it tells us — and doesn't. What BMI Can and Can't Tell Us 'The advantage of BMI,' said obesity specialist Yoni Freedhoff, MD, is that 'it's easily calculable.' Just run your height and weight through a BMI calculator. Freedhoff, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, also acknowledges that 'BMI has a basis in statistical risk.' We've known for a long time that a person with obesity has a higher risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we learned that someone with a BMI over 30 was statistically more likely to develop a severe or even fatal illness. But when we look at overall risk of dying early from any cause, the link to excess body weight doesn't line up with expectations. A 2023 study found that, among U.S. adults, the likelihood of early death was 5%-7% lower among people with a BMI in the 'overweight' range, compared to those with a BMI between 22.5 and 24.9. The results varied significantly for older vs. younger groups. For those 65 and older, the chance of early death was about the same across BMIs from 22.5 to 34.9 — from the high end of 'healthy' to the low end of 'obese.' But for participants younger than 65, the lowest death rates were more constrained: from 22.5 to 27.4. 'BMI alone does not capture metabolic risk well,' said study author Aayush Visaria, MD, an instructor of medicine and clinical researcher at Rutgers University. That's because it can't distinguish between fat mass and lean tissue (muscle, bone, water), much less account for how a person's fat is distributed. That's important, Visaria said, because health professionals may overlook potential health risks in a patient who has a 'normal' BMI but poor body composition — the ratio of fat to muscle. The combination isn't as rare as it sounds. Research shows that many people with a 'healthy' BMI have excess body fat, defined as 25% or more in men and 35% or more in women. So what are the alternatives to using BMI to assess a patient's health risks? A New Paradigm for Diagnosing Obesity 'BMI by itself doesn't do anything for me,' said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. 'I call it street-corner medicine. You're looking at the person like you're sitting on the street corner and you're like, 'That person has this issue.'' That's the message of a recent report that Stanford developed along with dozens of obesity experts from across the globe. The report puts obesity on a continuum. Where a person lands depends on how much body fat they have and how it affects their health and abilities. Toward the healthier end, you'd have someone whose BMI puts them in the overweight or obesity range but who has no weight-related health problems. They also wouldn't have excess fat mass, which you can indirectly measure with a tape measure. If their waist circumference, measured at the belly button, is less than 35 inches (for a woman) or 40 inches (for a man), you can assume they have a healthy body composition. A lot of athletes and other highly active people would fit into this category. At the other end of the continuum is clinical obesity: a chronic illness caused by excess body fat. Clinical obesity affects the person's health and/or quality of life at a functional level. They might have sleep apnea or joint pain; high blood pressure or heart problems; or high blood sugar or low HDL cholesterol. Or it might be some combination. Whatever the symptoms are, clinical obesity has a significant effect on the patient's present and future health status. Somewhere in between is preclinical obesity. In this category, a person has objectively high body fat (whether measured directly with DEXA or indirectly via waist circumference) but doesn't yet have obesity-related complications. Those complications are by no means exclusive to people with obesity. In a recent study, Stanford and her co-authors found that 61% of participants with a BMI of 30 or higher had at least one obesity-related complication — typically muscle or joint pain, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. But so did 50% of participants with a 'normal' BMI. 'I don't know anything about [a patient] until I do a full assessment,' Stanford said. In fact, she won't see a new patient until she has access to a full metabolic workup, including fasting blood lipids and glucose, as well as their height and weight measurements. 'I don't even go over BMI with patients until it gets very severe, which is that 40-plus group.' What No Measurement Can Tell Us Someone with such a high BMI is unlikely to be surprised by hearing it. 'People who have excess weight know they have excess weight,' Freedhoff said. 'The doctors know. Everybody knows.' That's why Freedhoff doesn't think it matters if we replace or combine BMI with any other metrics. 'None of those numbers tell you if the individual in front of you has health consequences of their excess adiposity,' he said. Even more important, he added, is whether they themselves have any concerns about their weight. 'And if the answer to all those questions is no' — they have no medical conditions that require treatment, and they don't think their weight affects their quality of life — 'they're good to go. Just monitor, like we would with any other medical condition.' Why BMI Won't Go Away So if BMI doesn't offer uniquely valuable information, why is it still so ubiquitous? Why is it still used to assess who is or isn't at risk for diabetes or heart disease? Why is BMI the basis for prescribing in-demand weight loss medicines or for approving a range of procedures from joint replacements to organ transplants? 'It all comes down to what's the easiest, best number to use?' Freedhoff said. 'I'm not saying it's BMI, but I'm not saying it isn't.' If excess body fat is what medical providers should be monitoring, he added, 'BMI is pretty darned good' at detecting it. That's supported by a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It showed that an overwhelming majority of participants with a BMI above the obesity threshold do, in fact, have excess body fat, as measured by DEXA. Still, Freedhoff said, no number has perfect prognostic value. That applies to any tool doctors use for any chronic condition. The difference with BMI is that it comes with the onus of personal responsibility. Whereas a doctor would never suggest that a patient's cardiac arrhythmia is a choice, that implication is almost always part of the conversation when it comes to obesity. 'I marvel at how challenging it seems to be for society as a whole, including health care, to consider obesity to be just another chronic medical condition that the person did not choose, that does not always guarantee problems, that does respond to treatment, and that should be free from blame,' Freedhoff said.
CNN
5 days ago
- CNN
US to burn $9.7 million worth of USAID-purchased contraceptives rather than deliver them to women overseas
The Trump administration is set to destroy $9.7 million worth of US-purchased contraceptives rather than deliver them to women overseas, following the dismantling of foreign assistance programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development, or USAID. The 'preliminary decision' to destroy the USAID-procured birth control was confirmed by a State Department spokesperson, who said the cost of incinerating them would be $167,000. The contraceptives have been housed in a warehouse in Geel, Belgium. The Belgian foreign ministry said it was engaged in diplomatic talks with the US embassy to work to find alternative solutions for the supplies. The contraceptives are mostly long-lasting types of birth control, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and injectables, a US congressional aide told CNN. It is not clear exactly when the supplies will be destroyed, according to the aide. 'They have to double incinerate the products because they contain high levels of hormones and they don't want to risk leaking the byproducts out in the environment, which likely adds to the cost,' the congressional aide said. 'The Trump administration is quite literally burning taxpayer money.' A list of the supplies, shared with CNN by another source with knowledge of the warehouse stock, shows that the contraceptives include copper IUDs, rod implants, birth control injections, and levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets. Some have USAID branding but the majority do not, according to the source's list. Most of the products expire in 2028 or 2029, with the earliest expiration date among the products in April 2027, according to the list detailing the nearly 5 million items. The US State Department spokesperson referred to the contraceptives to be destroyed as 'certain abortifacient birth control commodities from terminated Biden-era USAID contracts.' There is controversy about whether to describe certain contraceptives as abortifacient, or causing abortion, due to the debate over whether life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized or at a later stage. Some birth control methods, including IUDs, may work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. However, IUDs primarily work by suppressing the release of eggs, or by preventing sperm from reaching an egg. CNN has approached the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for comment. 'Only a limited number of commodities have been approved for disposal. No HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed,' the spokesperson added. 'USAID avoided an additional $34.1 million in taxpayer costs by negotiating no-cost cancellations of pending orders placed under the Biden Administration.' Responding to media reports that the contraceptives were set to be transferred to a French medical waste facility to be destroyed by the end of July, a diplomatic source in France told CNN that the contraceptives were being handled by private entities and they had 'no information concerning any transfers,' as of Thursday last week. 'We firmly support the Belgian authorities' commitment to find a solution in order to prevent the destruction of these contraceptives, so that they may reach women and men around the world who need them and are waiting for them,' the diplomatic source added. 'Access to quality sexual and reproductive health services and products is both a human rights and a public health issue.' US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a staff member to the warehouse in Belgium as part of her effort to introduce legislation prohibiting 'the destruction of any such commodities unless all efforts to sell or donate them have been exhausted.' The staffer also found that the earliest expiration date for the contraceptives was 2027, with some of the supplies not expiring until 2031, meaning they could still be used for years to come. 'At a moment when the Trump administration has made devastating cuts to foreign assistance it is disappointing that the State Department would sign off on spending money to actually destroy paid-for commodities that would save lives and are waiting to be deployed,' Shaheen said in a statement. 'Food and family planning commodities are desperately needed in conflict affected countries, like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo where famine is taking hold.' Belgian foreign ministry spokeswoman Florinda Baleci told CNN the country was 'exploring all possible avenues to prevent the destruction of these stocks, including their temporary relocation.' An organization called MSI Reproductive Choices said it and other funding partners had offered to pay for the shipping and repackaging of the USAID-branded supplies, but that the US government turned down the offer. 'We were not given a reason for why this offer was not accepted, but it became clear in conversations that it wouldn't be and that our efforts would be better spent finding alternative solutions to the contraception supplies gap,' said Grace Dunne, a spokeswoman for MSI, which works in 36 countries to provide reproductive healthcare, including abortion services, contraception and maternity care. In response to questions about the offer from CNN, the State Department highlighted the so-called 'Mexico City policy,' which 'prohibits providing certain assistance – directly or indirectly – to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.' That policy, which opponents call the 'global gag rule,' prevents non-governmental organizations that provide abortions, give counseling about abortions or advocate for safe access to abortion from receiving US funding. The planned destruction of the contraceptives has sparked an outcry from other organizations, like Doctors Without Border (MSF), which raised concerns about contraceptive shortages in nations that were once reliant on supplies donated by USAID. 'In the communities served by MSF – whether impacted by conflict, disease outbreaks, natural and human-made disasters, or exclusion from health care – access to contraceptives is already constrained,' the organization said in a statement. 'Contexts that previously relied upon USAID funded contraceptive supplies are at a heightened risk of supply chain disruptions and stockouts.' 'MSF has seen firsthand the positive health benefits when women and girls can freely make their own health decisions by choosing to prevent or delay pregnancy – and the dangerous consequences when they cannot,' the chief executive of MSF USA, Avril Benoît, added. MSF also cited reports saying that more USAID-branded contraceptives are being housed in a warehouse in the United Arab Emirates, but the organization said the US government's plan for those supplies is unknown. A State Department spokesperson did not address a question about contraceptives warehoused in the UAE. CNN has reached out to the UAE government for comment. At the beginning of July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the end of USAID, saying that future foreign assistance programs would align with administration policies and be administered by the State Department. The rapid dismantling of USAID, led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has seen thousands of foreign assistance programs slashed, including many that focused on lifesaving work. A study published earlier this month by a leading medical journal, The Lancet, estimated that the USAID funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030. USAID funding was most likely to reduce mortality related to HIV/AIDS, followed by malaria, according to the study.
