Food Safety Counsel : Food Safety Defense Lawyer & Attorney : National Food Industry Counsel : National Food Regulatory Lawyer and Attorney, FDA Lawyer and Attorney. USDA Lawyer and Attorney : Gass Weber Mullins Law Firm

Gone are the days when Salmonella was associated with a few, select food products. Recent Salmonella outbreaks and recalls have involved popular foods such as poultry, pot pies, peppers, pepper (the spice), peanut butter, peanuts and now . . . pistachios. 

Following the discovery of Salmonella in its products, California-based Setton Farms (the second-largest pistachio producer in the nation) announced a voluntary recall of up to 1,000,000 pounds of pistachios. The nuts originated from Terra Bella, California, about 75 miles south of Fresno. Although raw pistachios are roasted to a temperature that will typically kill the pathogen, the positive test results suggest that the pistachios may have been contaminated post-intervention.

The products were distributed from California to a plethora of places throughout the United States. The bulk pistachios, typically shipped in 2,000-pound containers, were either repackaged by customers for resale or incorporated into other food products such as ice cream and trail mix. Popular foods, all.

On March 24, 2009, Kraft Foods (one of about three dozen companies that purchase pistachios from Setton Farms) notified the FDA that it discovered Salmonella in the products during routine probing. Working closely with health officials, Setton Farms quickly issued a recall of all potentially affected products.  In this case, it would appear, the system worked Perfectly.

To date, there have been no confirmed illnesses associated with these products. Although the FDA has reportedly received two complaints from two people (on the East and West coasts) who allegedly felt poor after eating pistachios, a link to Setton Farms, while possible, has not yet been proven.

As an aside, the Setton Farms voluntary recall is not in any way related to the recent PCA recalls associated with peanuts or peanut butter (from Blakely or . . . Plainview).

So, what’s the potential link between pathogens and popular foods starting with the letter “P”? Probing Question. Given past Salmonella issues associated with other popular purchases -- from Pets (including Parrots and Pythons) to Pet Foods (some made with Pork) -- we all remain a bit, well, Perplexed . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On the heels of one Salmonella outbreak comes word of yet another. This time, a variety of spices manufactured by the Union International Food Company (and distributed under the Lian How brand name) have been identified as the likely culprits. Investigators with the Oregon Department of Human Services reacted quickly, and were able to isolate the outbreak strain from a sample of ground black pepper. Congratulations for a job well done.

Although Union International has announced a recall of its products, the ultimate origin of the spices has yet to be identified. Could it have come from outside of the United States, we wonder? It will be interesting to find out. In the meantime, we are being told that consumers – especially patrons of Chinese and Vietnamese restaurants – should avoid adding ground pepper or other spices to their prepared dishes. So far, the company has recalled White Pepper, Whole White Pepper, Black Pepper, Whole Black Pepper, Cayenne Pepper, Paprika, Chopped Onion, Onion Powder, Garlic (chopped, minced, powder and granulated), Curry Powder, Mustard Powder and Wasabi Powder.

In related news, the CDC evidently couldn’t wait, in the midst of a pepper recall, to warn us that we’re all eating too much salt. In a new study, released at about the same time as the recalls were being announced, the CDC complained that Americans on average eat twice the daily "recommended" sodium levels. Thanks.

Thus, in addition to not eating pepper, we must also cut back on salt.

So, next time you sit down for a meal, instead of passing the salt and pepper, you might be well advised to just . . . “pass.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The West wasn’t won on salads.

It was won on beef.  Some say it’s why man invented fire, others claim it’s why space aliens steal our cows. For me, it’s what I do (plus, I like the texture). As excitement builds in advance of the NCAA Championship, let’s not forget why we’re here. Although ESPN is a leader in basketball coverage, they’re even better reporting on Meat.

According to ESPN’s Paul Lukas, “[wh]en it comes to food, meat's the treat to eat that can't be beat.” So, let’s set aside, for a moment, that big tangerine ball. Behind the scenes, an even larger battle is brewing.

What is, we ask, the best meat in the world? Welcome to Meat Madness (Click here for the Brackets).

As No. 1 seeded Porterhouse squares off against No. 16 Steak-ums in the Beef Region, Bacon and Hog Jowl are going head-to-head in Pork.

At the table in the Sausage Region are Pepperoni (4) – reportedly a little thin following recent injuries – and the Bangers (13) who, as we all know, are absolutely “on fire.” Personally, I'm expecting an upset. The Bangers, in my opinion, stand a good chance of cleaning Pepperoni's plate.

In the Miscellaneous Region, however, things are still the air. With Duck (5) hosting Cornish Hen (12), most predict a dog fight.  We, at the very least, would anticipate a high-scoring, um, "game." 

So, my plans for the weekend?

Waiting to see who makes the "Sizzling Sixteen." Salivating, actually. We'll be sitting down tomorrow with some beef jerky (not in the tournament) and turning on the cable. If you’re interested in the hunt, feel free to stop by. Otherwise, check out the predictions and Meat Brackets for yourself. 

We’re all watching this one closely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Food safety has long been a battle fought on multiple fronts. Once again, the principle proves true. As we continue to report on the absence of effective food safety laws abroad, our colleagues here at home are working feverishly to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our own food safety system.

Is it possible, some ask, that all federal food safety responsibilities might be integrated into a single food safety agency? Although not likely in the very short-term, it would seem, at the very least, that the table is being set. As the search continues for new solutions to new food safety challenges, Trust for America's Health, along with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, released a report advocating significant changes to our national food safety system. The report, Keeping America's Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food Safety System at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, outlines various weaknesses in the current system, and proposes, among other things, numerous improvements to the food safety functions of the  Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). In essence, the report advocates (as a first step) the creation of a new, stand-alone food agency within HHS.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), an agency within HHS, has responsibility for regulating the safety of drugs, medical devices and many foods. Although the United States Department of Agriculture, through its Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”), is responsibile for all meat, poultry and egg products sold in interstate commerce, the FDA regulates the safety of virtually all other foods (Learn how our food is currently regulated). To view the current, rather confusing, organizational structure of the FDA, click on the following link :

To increase efficiency (and decrease confusion), the new report urges Congress to quickly create a stand-alone Food Safety Administration (“FSA”) within HHS. Conceptually, the proposal would effectively split the FDA into two seperate agencies, each operating on the same plane - one devoted to food and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices. While the FSA would be responsible for regulating food safety, the drug and device sections of the FDA would become a separate agency called the “Federal Drug and Device Administration.” According to the report, a stand-alone food agency would fix the following key weaknesses under the current  structure:

• Inadequate leadership, prioritization, and coordination within FDA: No FDA official whose full-time job is food safety has line authority over all food safety functions. FDA's three major food safety components are managed separately, hampering efforts to effectively prevent disease outbreaks.

• Inadequate technologies and inspection practices: Current laws and practices are antiquated. Existing laws date back to 1906 and 1938, and policies are disproportionately focused on monitoring food after it has been produced, instead of trying to prevent and detect problems throughout the entire production process. And, there is no system in place to keep inspection practices up-to-date with the constantly modernizing food production technologies and practices.

• Inadequate staffing and resources: The FDA's Science Board found the agency is chronically underfunded. While the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports the turnover rate in FDA science staff in key areas, including food safety, is twice that of other government agencies.

• Inadequate inspection of imports (my favorite): Only one percent of imported foods are currently inspected, even though approximately 60 percent of fresh fruits and vegetables and 75 percent of seafood Americans consume is imported.

A stand-alone food safety agency such as the FSA would also, according to the report's authors, result in integrated and accountable senior leadership, integrated public health and science functions, and integrated compliance and enforcement programs. Click here (or on the picture to the right) to view the proposed organizational structure of a new FSA.  Ultimately, according to Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of RWJF, the proposal contained within the report is needed to ensure that "food safety [becomes] a priority on the prevention menu." 

Notably, in addition to the significant proposed changes to the fundamental structure of FDA, the report advocates (as a second step) potential future changes to FSIS and other agencies as well. Although FSIS in the short-term would likey continue to operate within the USDA as a separate agency, the report ultimately recommends that all current federal food safety functions (including FSIS responsibilities) should eventually be integrated into a single food safety agency. Thus, although the proposed immediate changes to the FDA will likely garner the most attention as the report is studied and considered, pointed advocacy for a single food safety administration (for all federal food regulatory functions) will likely follow.

In any event, as part of its vision, the report also recommends that a spot at the table be cleared (assuming a new food safety agency is created) for a single Food Safety Czar. We, of course, will wait for a response from Congress and the Obama Administration before we offer our comments on potential candidates . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Helping a friend remodel his home this weekend, we pondered briefly (during a short break for dinner) whether the food we were eating was made in the U.S. or China. Although China was a possibility, I didn’t have the heart to tell my close friend that, even if the food didn’t kill us, his new drywall might. Health officials from numerous states are now looking into claims that Chinese-made drywall poses health risks to consumers. It has been alleged that the drywall has been emitting sulfur-based gases, which corrode electrical wiring (ruining common household appliances) and may even make people sick. Following numerous complaints, limited laboratory testing of Chinese-made drywall found that it contained higher levels of sulfuric and organic compounds (some of which could cause severe illness) than American-made samples. Additional testing, however, is needed to determine the extent to which the Chinese-made products may be responsible for the growing number of complaints. For more information, please visit the Florida Department of Health Drywall Website, which is devoted specifically to this developing issue.

These disturbing reports, of course, come only months after 2008 Chinese milk scandal. As you may recall, Chinese-manufactured milk, infant formula, and other food products were found to be tainted by melamine – an inexpensive but harmful substance that can cause severe health problems. Following reports of numerous illnesses, it was discovered that Chinese companies were adding the industrial chemical to their food products because it can artificially make poor quality or inferior foods appear to have higher protein content. In turn, when consumed in large quantities, melamine can lead to the formation of dangerous crystals in the kidneys, and can result in organ failure. When the Chinese melamine outbreak was finally contained, China reluctantly reported that 300,000 people were affected, 860 babies were hospitalized, and at least 6 people died. Although these are large numbers, I personally doubt they are accurate. China has no real food-borne illness reporting or surveillance system like in the U.S., and the total people affected by the scandal (and other unreported food-related illnesses and outbreaks in China) is likely staggering.

Although China is continuing its “investigations” into the melamine scandal, and recently “fired” a number of high-level industry regulators, this is likely little more than political gamesmanship. China has done little to impress when it come to food safety. If the Chinese leadership really wanted to make a difference, it would be well-advised to look beyond a few, select personnel changes, and promptly invest billions into new system of food safety regulation, enforcement and oversight. And, although China did recently enact various “new” food laws (which will go into effect in June), popular thinking suggests that, with still relatively few regulations, multiple agencies with competing responsibilities, uneven enforcement, rampant corruption and nearly 500,000 food companies to regulate, not much will change. Sounds to me like a missed opportunity. Although our own system is not perfect, we are at least well-suited to quickly identify, capture and solve problems when they do occur.

In any event, once China gets its act together and begins addressing seriously its growing and ominous food safety problems, perhaps it can come replace my friend's drywall.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As industry continues to announce recalls of peanut butter products affected by the ongoing Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak, Congressman Waxman held hearings focused on shortcomings in the third-party food safety audits perfomed on behalf of the Peanut Corporation of America (“PCA”). The hearings were triggered after the American Institute of Baking (“AIB”), a private auditing company hired by PCA, was accused of failing to identify various sanitary problems during food safety audits of PCA's facility. Click on the link to view a copy of Congressman Waxman's Opening Remarks.

On March 5, 2009, Michael Moss and Andrew Martin of the New York Times were the first to critique the AIB audits in their article, “Food Safety Problems Slip Past Private Inspectors.” We similarly reported about various inconsistencies found in AIB's reports involving PCA’s plants. On March 27, 2008, for instance, an AIB Food Safety Audit gave PCA credit for developing and implementing a HACCP program “for all processes and product lines.” On April 29, 2008, however, a NSF Cook & Thurber Audit found “[no] documented . . . Hazard Analysis for each of the process steps.”

During the hearings, held by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, it was also revealed that at least one food company, Nestle USA, used its own inspectors to audit PCA’s facilities. Following a 2002 Nestle Audit, the company concluded that PCA failed to meet its minimum requirements for suppliers. In turn, Nestle elected not to purchase peanut butter products from PCA. In a separate 2006 Nestle Audit of PCA’s Plainview, Texas facility, the company once again concluded that PCA failed to satisfy its food safety standards. While Nestle’s own audits identified numerous key food safety and sanitary issues in this facility, AIB in 2008 awarded PCA a certificate for "superior quality” following its own audit of the plant:

As we reported previously, PCA voluntarily closed its Plainview facility in February 2009 (only months after this certificate was issued), after governmental investigators discovered numerous sanitary issues existing in the plant. As a result of its own, continuing investigation, Texas health officials eventually ordered a recall of all products ever produced at the facility since it opened in March 2005.  Click on the link to view photos of the insanitary conditions of PCA's facilities.

Many companies that purchased peanut butter from PCA, of course, relied upon the inspections and conclusions of auditors like AIB. Kellogg, one of the companies which relied upon such third-party reports, lost $70 million after having to recall millions of packages of peanut butter crackers manufactured using PCA raw materials. In turn, David Mackay, Kellogg’s chief executive officer, recently joined the growing ranks of responsible food companies seeking tighter food safety laws.  Click on the link to view a copy of Mackay's Statement.  Also providing statements were Martin Kanan (President and CEO of Kanan Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a King Nut), and Heather Isely (Vice President of Vitamin Cottage Natural Foods).  On January 6, 2009, Salmonella was isolated from King Nut peanut butter manufactured using raw materials from PCA's Blakely, Georgia facility.  As recalls of King Nut peanut butter were announced, the source of the pathogen was quickly traced to PCA.  In turn, Vitamin Cottage peanut butter products, made from raw materials from PCA's Plainview, Texas facility, were also found to contain Salmonella.

During testimony today, the committee also released numerous emails exchange before and during the ongoing recalls. In one email, written before the source of the outbreak was identified, Pete Hatfield (an AIB Auditor) tells Sammy Lightsey (a PCA plant manager) that he’s “lucky” Hatfield is performing his annual food safety audit. Click on the link to view the Lightsey email.

In a second email, written as the source of the emerging outbreak was discovered, Stewart Parnell (the President of PCA) tells Joe Valenza (the Vice President of King Nut) that he “[was] sure it's something we did." Recognizing that recalls could not be avoided, Parnell concludes: "now my heart is really in my throat.  I think I'm going to church tonight." Click on the link to view the Parnell email.

In the third email, written as hundreds of recalls had already been announced, NSF representatives discuss the concerns raised by the AIB audits, the lack of micro data made available by PCA to auditors, and the potential implications for third-party auditing firms. Click on the link to view the NSF / Slawinski email.

Debate has begun and will surely continue regarding the quality of third-party food safety audits. Although most audits are valuable, and play an important role in our food safety system, we trust that, moving forward, all auditors, and the companies that rely upon their conclusions, will not repeat the mistakes of a select few.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In addition to peaches, we all know (now) that Georgia also dabbles in peanuts. Notably, the state is regarded as the nation's leading peanut producer, employing an estimated 50,000 people in an industry worth approximately $2.5 billion. Following the massive recalls of peanut butter products originally announced by the Peanut Corporation of America in January 2009, Georgia lawmakers introduced and passed a new bill that will make Georgia the first state to require food producers to inform state inspectors if test results show that their food products contain trace elements of harmful pathogens. 

Although, in the coming weeks (or months), the FDA will also begin requiring food manufacturers that obtain positive test results to report such findings to the agency, Georgia is the first individual state to enact such rules. Under the proposed legislation, state agriculture officials will be empowered to adopt regulations that will establish how frequently food processors must conduct internal testing. Similar to the looming federal requirements, the new rules will require food processors to report results within 24 hours of any positive test. The laws, as drafted, also exempt (of course) meat, poultry and other manufacturers that fall within the jurisdiction of the USDA.

The legislation has now passed in both the Georgia state Senate and House of Representatives. Governor Sonny Perdue is expected to sign the bill soon. 

Peachy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Where’s the beef? I’m worried about our corn.

The morning after St. Patrick’s Day, I find myself thinking about the ultimate wisdom of using food to fuel our wants and needs. Barley for beer, berries for wine, sugar for rum and whatever it is they use to make moonshine (your guess is as good as mine), is one thing. Using food for fuel, however, is an entirely different matter.

Each year, hard-working American farmers and food producers need to harvest and process enough quality food for nearly 365 billion meals (not including snacks). As we continue to divert more of our nation’s corn and other crops to produce ethanol for fuel, our food prices will of course continue to rise. Other potential and rarely-discussed consequences, however, could be far more severe.

Bill Marler, an adversary but respected colleague, writes often on his blog about security shortcomings in our food system which, I agree, make the general safety of our food vulnerable to interference or attack from enemies. I query, alternatively, what might happen years or decades from now, if those who wish us harm were to develop and introduce a microbe into American farm fields, which could spread and destroy (I’m personally reminded of the 1845 potato famine) a significant percentage of our staple crops. Not only would our food infrastructure be devastated, but we could potentially find ourselves in the precarious situation of not being able to make enough ethanol to fuel the new breed of (green) vehicles needed to harvest, produce and distribute the food we eat. Although, I suppose, in a worst case scenario, we could always revert to forgotten times, using horses to transport replacement crops and foods from regions not affected, I am still trying to figure out what they would be fed.

Let there be no mistake, I am not opposed to alternative fuels, even those that require food to produce. We do need to find and develop new options, and there appear to be a wide-range of possibilities (solar and wind seem viable). My only point is that, as we set and define our national food and fuel policy, we should be very careful not to put all our eggs in one basket. We each enjoy and need the food we eat – including its availability and affordability. Thus, let’s make sure that, at all turns, and all levels, we protect both.

Just some extra food (or, fuel) for thought.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The USDA has granted a conditional license for the nation's first E. coli O157:H7 cattle vaccine. The vaccine is designed to reduce the level of E. coli O157:H7 in the intestines of host cattle, and to prevent the bacteria from spreading in feed lots.

Although additional efficacy tests still need to be conducted, the conditional license granted by the USDA will allow Epitopix LLC, the manufacturer of the vaccine, to begin offering the product for sale. The company developed the vaccine along with researchers from Kansas State University and West Texas A&M University.

During testing, researchers conducted a challenge study, a natural infection trial, and two large-pen field studies of the vaccine at commercial feedlots. According to reports, the vaccine reduced the number of cattle testing positive for the O157:H7 bacteria by 85 percent. Of the animals that did test positive for the pathogen, the vaccine reportedly eliminated 98 percent of the bacteria. "Those are impressive numbers," said Dr. Michael Doyle, director of the University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety. In turn, Jim Sandstrom, of Epitopix, confirmed that the vaccine “represents a significant breakthrough in the beef industry's ongoing effort to reduce E. coli O157:H7."

Following additional studies, Epitopix will likely gain full approval for the vaccine. The company estimates that, eventually, the vaccine will protect as many as 10 million cattle every year (about 1/4 of the country's annual cattle supply), and will likely cost less than $10 per head. One of the country's largest beef producers has already expressed interest in purchasing the vaccine.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Food Safety Inspection Service ("FSIS") has issued a new Notice (18-09), detailing its changes in sampling frequency for E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. According to the notice, FSIS will be increasing sampling at high volume ground beef establishments at the following monthly rates:

• Up to four times within a 30-day window for establishments with ground beef product production volumes of greater than 250,000 pounds per day;

• Up to three times within a 30-day window for establishments with ground beef product production volumes of 50,000 to 250,000 pounds per day;

• Up to two times within a 30-day window for establishments with ground beef product production volumes of 1,000 to 50,000 pounds per day; and

• Generally, no more than once within a 30-day window for establishments with ground beef product production volumes of less than 1,000 pounds per day. However, FSIS will ensure that at these establishments at least one sample is collected quarterly.

According to the FSIS, the increase in sampling will allow the Agency to estimate the amount of uncontaminated raw ground beef with a higher degree of certainty. The Office of Public Health Science and the Office of Data Integration and Food Protection will analyze sample results, and will produce a weekly report on findings. According to the notice, the Office of Data Integration and Food Protection will also analyze the sampling data to identify trends (e.g., geographical, seasonal) and to evaluate program effectiveness (e.g. sample scheduling and collection rates). In addition, the data will be used to calculate a quarterly performance measure of E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef that will likely be included in the Agency’s quarterly performance report.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We live in a world of contrasts.  I wrote a few days ago about a positive food safety experience while flying on Delta (leaving Milwaukee). I was not so impressed, however, on the return flight home.  While weaving our way back to Milwaukee on an American Airlines flight, I was discouraged to discover that the faucets on American's regional jets are now bone dry. Hmmm.

While I understand that the airlines are struggling to stay afloat in this difficult economy, and have started removing certain niceties from their flights, shutting-off the running water in the lavatory strikes me as a bit extreme. Rather than allowing customers to grace their hands with hot, soapy water after using the restroom, American now offers a plastic container full of cold wet-wipes.

The airlines already pack (literally) dozens of adults, children and sometimes pets into a small silver tube for hours at a time. And, although the flight crews on American are by no means experts in food service, they do serve food. The potential for the spread of illness among large groups of people in airports and on airlines is already high, and need not be exemplified because of the decision to turn off water in a bathroom. Water is cheap – health is not.

So, if you’re listening American, please turn the water back on. You will likely save a customer – and, might even save a life.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It never occurred to me to ask if responsibility has a border. Neither, apparently, has it occurred to the flight crews of Delta Airlines. While flying from Milwaukee to an undisclosed location today, I experienced Southern Hospitality in an entirely new way. The flight attendant’s name was Mandy, and she is based out of Atlanta. Midway into our flight, she handed me the Coke I ordered - along with a plastic cup.  Because I like to drink my soda from the can, I promptly attempted to return the plastic. She, of course, refused.

“No offense honey, but I’ve no idea where your hands have been. I know where mine were! I don’t know where yours have been . . .”

The statement may look rude on paper, but it was expertly delivered, and with a genuine smile. Mandy was distinctly friendly and, because of her, my next flight will be on Delta. Individuals like Mandy exemplify the care and consideration that most food (or, in this case, drink) vending Americans should strive to emulate. She wasn’t concerned about her own well-being. She could have (and did) wash her hands before and after doing the drink service. She didn’t touch my cup because she understood that by doing so, she could potentially put other passengers at risk (my own hands are very clean, by the way).

In any event, I don’t know how the personnel at Delta are trained. What I do know is that one person can always make a difference. Today, I witnessed exactly that. As a result, I had one of the most positive flying experiences in my life

Keep up the good work, all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the last decade, there have been numerous attempts to reform our food safety laws. As our ability to identify food-borne illnesses and outbreaks continues to improve (special thanks to the CDC, PulseNet and OutbreakNet), at least some weaknesses that were rarely, if ever, considered are now being found. Thus, although most meals consumed in this country remain perfectly safe, the recent peanut butter recalls have those advocating the need for additional checks and balances, at least for certain segments of industry, finding growing support.

Prompted by the recent recalls, lawmakers have proposed revised food safety legislation – the new FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -- which would give the FDA additional resources to more closely regulate food safety. The bipartisan bill was sponsored by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.). A parallel bill, the Safe Food Enforcement, Assessment, Standards and Targeting Act of 2009, was also introduced in the House. The new legislation proposes to increase the frequency of inspections at food facilities, give the FDA expanded access to company records and testing results, and allow the FDA to mandate recalls if a food company fails to follow the agency's recommendations. As reported and summarized by Janie Gabbett, from Meatingplace.com, the new bill will specifically:

• Require all food production facilities to implement preventive plans to address hazards and prevent adulteration, and give the FDA access to the plans and relevant documentation;

• Expand the FDA’s access to records in a food emergency;

• Allow the FDA to recognize laboratory accreditation bodies to ensure food testing labs meet high quality standards, and to require test results to be reported to the FDA;

• Allow the FDA to enable qualified third-parties to certify that foreign food facilities comply with U.S. food safety standards;

• Require importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food;

• Allow the FDA to require certification for high-risk foods, and to deny entry to any food that lacks certification;

• Increase FDA inspections at all food facilities, including annual inspections of high-risk facilities, and inspections of other facilities at least once every four years;

• Enhance food-borne illness surveillance systems to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and usefulness of data on food-borne illnesses;

• Require the Secretary of HHS to establish a pilot project to test and evaluate new methods for rapidly and effectively tracking/tracing fruits and vegetables in the event of a food-borne illness outbreak;

• Give the FDA the authority to order a mandatory recall of a food product when a company fails to voluntarily recall the product upon the FDA's request;

• Empower the FDA to suspend a food facility's registration if there is a reasonable probability that food from the facility could cause serious adverse health consequences or death;

• Direct the FDA to help food companies protect their products from intentional contamination, and rapidly respond to food emergencies;

• Increase funding for the FDA's food safety activities through increased appropriations and fees for domestic and foreign facilities.

In addition to receiving bipartisan support, many food companies and industry organizations have voiced support for the bill as well. Vocal supporters include General Mills, Kraft Foods and Kellogg's, along with the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Restaurant Association and the Produce Marketing Association. As reported by FoodNavigator-USA.com, Kirstie Foster, spokesperson for General Mills, stated:

“We are strong advocates for food safety system modernization and reform. Ensuring food safety is the highest priority of our industry. We support reform that includes both greater authority and greater resources to strengthen our ability to prevent and respond to food safety issues.”

In turn, Kraft spokesperson Susan Davison agreed, indicating that “the proposed legislation will make significant improvements . . .” Such comments were also echoed by the GMA, in a statement issued by president and CEO Pamela Bailey:

“Ensuring the safety of our products is the food industry’s most important priority... In particular, GMA supports proposals requiring all food companies to have a comprehensive food safety plan in place. It is absolutely critical that manufacturers take a preventative approach in identifying and evaluating potential hazards, and building food safety into the manufacturing process from the very beginning.”

Finally, according to Supermarketnews.com, Tom O’Brien, a representative for the PMA, also expressed support:

“I think the bills, if they get enacted, will restore consumer confidence in FDA, which in turn restores confidence in the food supply. They modernize FDA’s authorities, and they tell it that they should regulate based on the risk of any particular commodity. Those are very important things that we look for in legislation.”

Although the proposed legislation, if passed, would likely strengthen what already is a robust food safety system, there is unfortunately no solution that can completely eradicate food-borne illness. Like the common cold, flu and other ailments, illness occurs because microscopic pathogens exist in our world and can very easily contaminate our environment, our bodies and our food. Even if present in only small amounts that avoid detection, these organisms can eventually grow and multiply to levels that cause illness (whether introduced at a production facility or anywhere in the distribution chain). Moreover, despite continued best efforts to test for and find these pathogens, nature will continue to do its best to avoid being caught. Thus, although the proposed legislation will not eradicate illness, we are hopeful the new initiatives will, at the very least, help us more proactively identify and solve potential problems before they occur. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reporters Michael Moss and Andrew Martin today posted a copy of March 27, 2008 and April 29, 2008 third-party audits done at PCA’s Blakely, GA facility.

In their story, “Food Safety Problems Slip Past Private Inspectors,” Moss and Martin report that the inspector for the March audit was an expert in fresh produce, and quote industry expert Craig Wilson of Costco as doubting the expertise of the auditor’s employer, the American Institute of Baking:

“The American Institute of Baking is bakery experts,” said R. Craig Wilson, the top food safety official at Costco. “But you stick them in a peanut butter plant or in a beef plant, they are stuffed.”

The AIB Report notes that the most recent regulatory inspection had been done three months earlier, on December 14, 2007, by the Georgia Department of Agriculture, Consumer Protection Division. The Report states at p. 7, item 16, “No violations were noted.”

An April 29-30, 2008 audit by NSF Cook & Thurber also accompanies the story. That audit gave the plant a passing grade, but noted that plant management “is shorthanded as they have been without a Quality Assurance Manager since December, 2007.”

The Cook & Thurber audit also comments in the section on Facilities and Equipment, where several minor defects are noted, that “Peanut products produced at this facility are a direct consumable product without further treatment by the consumer. Considerations as a Ready-To-Eat Product need to be kept in mind for the production and storage environment.”

Of interest for follow up is the plant’s HACCP program. The AIB audit reports that a HACCP program “had been developed and implemented for all processes and product lines.” (page 6, item 11). Cook & Thurber’s audit reports, however, that “there is not a documented detail of Hazard Analysis for each of the process steps.” (Section B, No. 2).

Also, Cook & Thurber reported that although the Ready-To-Eat Operational Area “must be separated and effectively isolated from other operations,” via use of positive room air pressure, in fact “plant air is negative bringing outside air into an area where Ready-To-Eat products that have already been through a kill step are exposed to the plant environment.” (Section C, Item 4).

The final report on these audits will have to await a determination of where the contamination came from and how it ended up in finished product. Until then, we do not know the significance of these findings – which were irrelevant and which, if any, were wrong and represent a missed opportunity to protect the public health.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The USA Today tells readers across the country what many food safety professionals already know:

“When it comes to food-borne illness investigation, ‘Minnesota is leap years ahead of . . . most of the rest of the nation,’ says James Phillips, head of infectious diseases for the Arkansas Department of Health.”

[Read the Full Article]

One of Minnesota’s advantages is the resources devoted to “Team Diarrhea,” a group of seven to nine graduate students who work the phones interviewing and taking detailed exposure histories from every person who tests positive for Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7. Victims may be interviewed twice as further exposure evidence is gathered from other consumers. With this attention to detail, more outbreaks can be identified.

“Minnesota ‘has a lot of best practices . . . to get to people quickly to find out what they ate, the CDC’s [Ali]Kahn says.”

So congrats to the hard-working professionals in Minnesota.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Researchers at Purdue University have designed a device which uses electricity to kill harmful pathogens in prepackaged foods. Dr. Kevin Keener, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science, developed the technology.  According to Keener, the device uses high-voltage coils to ionize oxygen (which creates a plasma field) inside a sealed package of food. The plasma field, which increases temperature by only a few degrees, does not alter the product, but will kill any harmful bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella that may be present.

The technology works by placing two high-voltage, low-watt coils on the outside of a sealed package of food. The oxygen in the package is charged, becomes ionized and then turns into ozone. In turn, the ozone kills bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. The process uses only 30-40 watts of electricity (less than most incandescent light bulbs), and treatment times range from 30 seconds to about five minutes. Eventually, once the charge is removed, the ionized gas will revert back to its original composition. "It's kind of like charging a battery,” said Keener. “We're [simply] charging a sample without electrode intrusion."

According to Keener, the testing has worked with glass containers, flexible plastic-like food-storage bags and rigid plastics, such as strawberry cartons and pill bottles. "Conceptually, we can put any kind of packaged food we want in there," said Keener. "So far, it has worked on spinach and tomatoes, but it could work on any type of produce or other food." He also said the technology could work to ensure pharmaceuticals are free from bacteria.

The next step, reported Keener, is to develop a commercial prototype of the device that could work on large quantities of food.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As fallout continues from the peanut butter recalls originally announced in early January 2009 by the Peanut Corporation of America ("PCA"), some have wondered why the original Salmonella outbreak investigation took so long, and why recalls are still continuing. Unfortunately, most food-borne outbreaks take weeks (and, sometimes months) to identify because of the complexity of the issues involved. Incubation periods (the delay between food consumption and symptom onset) can range from hours to many weeks depending upon the pathogen at issue (Learn about common pathogen incubation periods). Once a pathogen has been isolated from a patient, additional time is needed to perform genetic testing on the samples to determine whether other cases are potentially linked. In turn, if numerous cases are identified and a food-borne illness investigation is initiated, additional days or weeks can be added as state and local health officials attempt to identify a single food (or other) source that is common to all the cases (Learn how food-borne illnesses and outbreaks are investigated and tracked).

This process, of course, becomes exceeding difficult in outbreaks involving common foods – or, as demonstrated in the Salmonella peanut butter outbreak, foods that used the same raw materials but do not appear on their face to have any link (i.e., ice cream, candies, granola bars and even dog biscuits). Thus, although the ongoing salmonella outbreak took significant time to identify, hats off to the CDC and FDA for being able to conclusively establish a common source. Click on the following link to download a PDF of the FDA’s Salmonella outbreak investigation timeline:

After illnesses are reported and confirmed, a common source is found, and recalls are initiated, investigators and industry must then work to remove all potentially implicated product from distribution. Here too, this process becomes extremely difficult when a recalled product is used as a raw material in countless common foods. In this outbreak, the process was confounded further because what began as a recall from a single facility (and involving product produced during a relatively limited period of time) quickly morphed into a recall involving years of production from multiple plants. Following the expended recall at PCA’s Blakely, Georgia production facility (involving all products produced at the plant since January 1, 2007) and the subsequent recall from PCA’s Plainview, Texas facility (involving all products produced at the facility since it opened in March 2005), FDA and industry alike quickly found themselves overwhelmed with the task of determining what downstream food products might potentially be implicated. Click on the link below to download a PDF of the FDA’s “simplified” PCA peanut product distribution flowchart:

As demonstrated by the FDA timeline and distribution chart, investigating the outbreak, and coordinating what will likely be remembered as one of the largest recalls in history, proved extremely complex. To date, more than 2,700 consumer products have been affected, and the recalls are continuing (search for affected food products using the FDA Recall Interface located on the left-hand column of our blog).  Thus, despite the overwhelming frustration experienced by FDA, industry and consumers as a result of the ongoing outbreak, investigation and recalls, we once again express our gratitude to all of those working tirelessly to bring this matter to its closure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link