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

I spend a lot of time thinking about food.

Although I defend food companies in high-profile foodborne illness outbreak lawsuits throughout the country, the majority of my time is spent working with clients to improve the quality of their operations from a risk exposure and brand protection standpoint. This is my favorite and most rewarding job -- working closely with food companies who, although not necessarily facing a large-scale outbreak or lawsuit, are nevertheless reaching out for advice on how to avoid both.

The easiest way for any food company to produce a safer product (and, by extension, to lower its risk), is to develop and adopt a robust food safety culture. But many companies struggle with the concept because it is too foreign, or they believe it will cost too much.

Many corporate leaders come from places other than the food industry, so they have little experience in food safety, and thus no corresponding desire to invest in the development of a food safety culture.

That’s why I started thinking about ways to address the food safety culture challenge from a different angle. As experts, we can’t just keep telling food companies they have to adopt a food safety culture, we have to help them do it.

So, how do apples and oranges play a role?

Well, we often characterize apples and oranges as being quite different. The reality, however, is that if we take a moment to think about it, the two fruits are really quite similar. They’re about the same cost, the same size, the same shape and the same weight. And, they’re usually placed in the same drawer in our refrigerator. To appreciate the significant parallels, we only need to open our eyes a little bit wider.

The same is true when it comes to the concepts of culture-driven workplace safety and food safety.

Most corporate leaders are intimately familiar with the concept of occupational safety. Notably, in virtually every workplace in America, the concept is driven home constantly. Everyone knows it, everyone gets it, and everyone accepts it.

And, most important, the language and messaging used to teach workplace safety is eerily similar (if not in most cases identical) to the language and messaging used to promote food safety culture. These parallels make the job of promoting a strong food safety culture in any organization exceedingly simple.

Indeed, companies can start down the road of developing a culture-based food safety program by taking all of their workplace safety placards, Powerpoints, videos and training materials used for occupational or workplace safety, and inserting the word “food safety” instead. Employees will understand it, management can teach it, and corporate leadership may even embrace it.

Although apples and oranges may look different, I would argue they sometimes fall from the same tree.

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

When it comes to the production of food, it is the things industry can’t see which industry fears most.

Lurking somewhere in the darkest corner of a hot box, in the silent throes of a sales cooler, or in a case-ready package being staged for delivery, there are a few colonies of pathogenic bacteria waiting patiently for their chance to wreak havoc in our business and lives.

For more than a decade, our firm has worked closely helping the meat industry with crisis management, regulatory response and complex litigation following large-scale outbreaks and recalls. The unfortunate reality from a business perspective is that, in a disturbing number of instances, when outbreaks and recalls occur, the companies that are involved cease to exist.

Watching innumerable outbreaks unfold over the years, our firm has gained a deep understanding about the science of food safety, the epidemiology of foodborne illness outbreaks and the legal consequences of food product recalls. We have also gained far-reaching experience analyzing why recalls occur in the first instance, and how they, in many instances, could have been avoided.

While all companies want their customers to believe that their products are as safe as possible, and try to communicate this fundamental message through their brand, in today’s world success requires more than just a good advertising campaign. In order so sell food safely, a company needs to demonstrate it can process a safe product. In order to process a safe product, the company needs to invest in making it a reality. Food safety, unfortunately, doesn’t just “happen” by itself.

Thus, when working to protect the interests of my own clients, I usually start with a Brand Protection Audit. Usually, I can accomplish what I need in just a single day. I like to interview employees to learn more about the company’s real food safety culture, and review food safety training materials to suggest improvements. I also like to assess a company’s written food safety plans, and look for hidden gaps that create additional exposure. Moreover, many companies are surprised to find out that their policies are not actually being executed as written.

In addition, companies can easily developing stronger and more effective supplier specifications, and indemnity agreements, that provide added protection, as well as ensuring that existing insurance coverage is sufficient to cover potential liabilities. We also work closely with companies to develop and then conduct mock recall training, in as close to a real-world scenario as possible, to test their ability to trace and also contain a potential problem.

Finally, we provide advice to our clients on to best respond to government-issued NRs (so as to avoid criticisms months or years later from a judge or jury), and also prepare for and respond to both routine and for cause Food Safety Assessments. Many companies simply do not realize that what they say today can (and always will) be used against them tomorrow.

With that said, merely creating the “image” that you care about food safety is no longer enough. History has taught us that by taking a few additional proactive steps right now, such as auditing the true depth and survivability of your brand (i.e., the Brand Protection Audit), companies can significantly and strengthen the trust in, and longevity of, their most important assets – their image and their brand.

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

In our last column, we introduced the fundamental challenges facing industry as it works to improve food safety.  Some of the greatest challenges, when it comes to food safety, are driven by basic economics.  This is because improving food safety, in most cases, costs money. 

Unless everyone in the industry is investing in the same food safety systems, those companies that spend more money will (at least in the short term) face a substantial competitive disadvantage when compared to those companies that do not.  Moreover, companies that aggressively search for and then find pathogens will, in most cases, face more governmental scrutiny than those that do not. 

So, what can we do about it?  As I mentioned last month, industry really needs additional help from an economic and regulatory standpoint. 

FSIS can start by reconsidering its new, soon to-be-announced rules that, reportedly, will require ALL processing companies, without exception, to place validated cooking instructions (designed to address harmful pathogens) on mechanically tenderized steaks.  Unfortunately, if enacted as proposed, the new rules would actually create a disincentive for food safety.

Indeed, not all processors are created equal.  Requiring ALL processors to carry the same validated cooking instructions (thus passing their own exposure to end-users downstream) could create significant disincentives for more companies to invest in new interventions designed to actually eliminate pathogens.  In my view, the solution lies in crafting the new rules so that processors will be EXEMPTED from the labeling requirements if they employ a validated intervention designed to address the risk.  If this could be accomplished, the large restaurant chains (the real drivers in the market) would invariably move toward and embrace products that: (1) are subjected to those interventions; and (2) as a result, exempted from the new cooking labels and requirements.

Government should also consider tax incentives for testing and finding pathogens in food.  Indeed, testing for (and then finding) pathogens can be very expensive.  This is because establishments that test raw products are required to divert positive product to cooking or rendering. Common sense tells us that the harder companies test, the more pathogens they will find, the more product they will divert and the more revenue they will lose.  Thus, of course, creates a significant disincentive to test and find.

So, is there a better way?  I think so.  For starters, I would counsel FSIS to reward (not punish) companies that aggressively test to find pathogens in their products.  Next, I would urge legislators to expand existing tax incentives (there are already some) for testing, research and quality control.

Finally, I would lobby for the creation of meaningful tax credits which would extend to any products affected by contamination and then diverted from their original intended use.

These, of course, represent just a few ideas to chew on.  In the end, we all know what we need to do – the problem is that we just need a few, extra incentives to get there. 

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

Not a single day goes by when we don’t hear about the critical importance of food safety.  We need to develop, embrace and encourage a robust food safety culture, we’re told.  We have to tirelessly reassess and verify the effectiveness of our food safety programs, we’re led to believe.  We have to invest in, and then build into our facilities, the best leading-edge interventions.  And, we have to implement and invest in an increasing level of environmental and food product sampling and testing, its suggested. 

That all sounds really great, but the reality is that we face substantial underlying fundamental problems when it comes to improving food safety.  Each of the items I describe above cost money.  Some of them, like new infrastructure to support new interventions, cost a lot of money.  And, what happens when our competitors are not investing in these initiatives.  Well, our competitors can sell a lot more product for a lot less money, and they will have a substantial economic advantage.  And, a disincentive for food safety.

Set economics aside.  What happens if companies who are aggressively testing finished products for pathogens actually find them (and, trust me, they will).  Well, in most instances, a positive finding in a finished product will trigger a protracted and uncomfortable governmental response requiring proof of containment (when, in some instances, it’s nearly impossible to convince the government of anything). These companies will also in many instances be subjected to undeserved, drawn-out scrutiny of their operating programs. 

The end result is that, while company A (which tests for pathogens) struggles for days or weeks to survive USDA’s criticism and scrutiny after finding them, Company B (which does not test for pathogens) will keep shipping contaminated product under the watchful eye of USDA.  Why test, these companies might ask, when testing only creates more regulatory problems? So, we see yet another significant disincentive.

So, where is the incentive for competitors to invest more deeply in food safety?  Well, we should all be doing what we reasonably can because it’s the right thing to do.  But, we also need some help from an economic and regulatory standpoint.  USDA needs to encourage the development and use of new technologies and testing programs, and then aggressively reward those companies that use them. 

In next month’s column, I will detail some ideas that can help reverse this paradigm.  And, while you may have to wait until then to hear what it is I have to say, I hope I’ve created at least some incentive for you to return – for the sake of food safety.

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

FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, recently addressed the issue of the consumer confidence in food safety at China’s International Food Safety and Quality Conference last week. Taylor described the issue as “an important goal in its own right.” He stressed the issue is just as important as public health in regards to food safety. Taylor argued that we all benefit if we do not have worry about food safety. In turn, although Taylor pointed out that most consumers know that food is not 100% risk-free, he did explain that they expect a certain “basic level” of safety.

During the conference, Taylor also described the economic impact that consumer confidence can have on the industry as a whole. He stated, “it provides the foundation for the growing global trade, as well as robust domestic markets that are open to innovative products and technologies.” In contrast, he explained what happens when consumer confidence is lost. If a company’s product results in an illness outbreak, the company pays the price: they lose consumer confidence and profit. Often times, assuming the company survives, it can take a significant amount of time to rebuild consumer confidence.

Taylor also discussed how countries are revamping their food safety programs to help enhance consumer confidence abroad. Examples of these countries include: Canada, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam. Taylor explained how the role of government is vital in aiding these new food safety initiatives. They can, in the end, and if done right, provide very “credible and effective” oversight.

Ultimately, Taylor stressed how it is the industry’s commitment and responsibility to food safety that will ultimately affect consumer confidence. As we always say, if industry continues lean forward in the food safety foxhole (as opposed to looking for ways to hide in it), both industry and the consumer will be better off.
 

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

This past week, a team of international food safety experts met to set framework for a food safety authority in Africa. The meeting was hosted by the Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources in Rwanda. The focus was on how to carry-out the African Union Commission’s (AUC) plan for a pan-African food safety program. The AUC would like to model their program after the European Food Safety Authority.

The center of the program will be on safety standards and to monitor food supply in Africa. During the meeting, they addressed need for such program, the objectives, structure/functionality, as well priorities and an implementation road map. There was also discussion of creating a Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) program in correlation with the authority. Notably, the European Union implemented a similar program back in 2002. This RASFF would act as a forum to share information about companies who produce products that might be of risk to consumers.

With the new program, AUC is hoping to increase standardization throughout the region which will, in turn, increase trade. Although the new authority is still in the planning stages, it looks like the initiative will continue to gain traction.
 

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

A new scorecard for lawmakers was launched on Wednesday by the advocacy group, Food Policy Action. The National Food Policy Scorecard will grade lawmakers on food issues relating to food safety, hunger, farm subsidies, farm workers’ rights and humane animal treatment. Other heavy-hitters in the food industry are backing the movement, such as Top Chef Tom Colicchio, Stonyfield Farm’s Gary Hirshberg, and Robin Schepper, the former executive director for Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign.

The scorecard looked at over 30 key food policy votes in Congress. Lawmakers were rewarded for voting on initiatives to reduce or eliminate federal subsidies paid to farmers, boost E. coli prevention funding, and that repeal ethanol subsidies. However, they were penalized for voting to reduce food assistance or weaken pesticide regulations.

Food Policy Action feels that despite Democrats out-scoring Republicans, the food scorecard is objective and non-partisan. Scott Faber, VP of Environmental Working Group said, “Food is a bipartisan issue.” Adding that, “some Republicans scored well and Democrats scored poorly.” Others chimed in saying “it isn’t about politics, it’s about values.”

Food Policy Action’s mission is to increase awareness about food policy. More specifically, they want to promote policies that encourage “healthy diets, reduce hunger at home and abroad, improve food access & affordability, uphold the rights and dignity of food and farm workers, increase transparency, improve public health, reduce the risk of foodborne illness, support local and regional food systems, treat farm animals humanely and reduce the environmental impact of farming and food production.”

It is not set on how the scorecard will be implemented. Only a few media outlets have reported the results from the scorecard released this past Wednesday.
 

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

After the success of last year’s first Food Day, this coming October 24, 2012 will mark the second annual National Food Day. It is organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), along with other leaders in the food industry, activists, and others from all across the country. The ultimate goal is to unify the nation’s key stakeholders to promote improved food policies. The campaign also addresses additional issues including: health and nutrition, hunger, agricultural policy, animal welfare, and farmer work justice (just to name a few).

Promoters of the initiative believe that food should bolster one’s health, not hinder it. Thus, a primary goal is to promote healthier, more affordable, and more sustainable food. In turn, there are many “Food Day” events occurring on October 24, 2012 throughout the country. To find out what events are happening near you, you can go to the Food Day website: http://www.foodday.org/all_events.

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

Gass Weber Mullins, along with national food safety attorneys Shawn Stevens and Ralph Weber, is featured in the September 2012 issue of Corporate Counsel, American Lawyer Media’s national in-house counsel magazine.

The article recaps the firm’s multiple nationwide trial victories, including a one-year stretch starting in August, ’11 when Gass Weber Mullins “put together a 7-0 streak of trial wins from Maui to  Maine" on a diverse mix of commercial, insurance and food safety cases.

In addition to profiling the firm's broad array of litigation work for clients generally, the article also explores the firm's recent victories for the food industry.  The firm's food safety team works nationally with a vast array of food industry clients (including some of the nation’s largest food processors, national restaurant chains, and food distributors and grocers), helping them comply with complex USDA and FDA food safety regulations, responding to FDA inspections (including 483s and Warning Letters) and USDA enforcement actions, enhancing their food safety programs and systems, reducing their food safety litigation risk and exposure, planning for outbreaks and recalls, and defending against high-profile foodborne illness outbreaks and claims.

Impressively, Gass Weber Mullins is one of the only law firms in the nation with such a diverse industry-focused food safety practice.

Indeed, while consulting with nearly all sectors in the food industry on ongoing food safety issues, the firm's food safety team was also, at the same time, able to obtain a favorable jury verdict in a high-profile federal foodborne illness outbreak lawsuit tried recently in Portland, Maine.

Corporate Counsel traces the firm’s roots back to a predecessor firm where several founding partners worked in the early 1990s, and who reunited in 2004 to create a boutique firm of lawyers which strives to be the best, not the necessarily biggest.

The firm has set itself apart as a national leader which embraces technology, makes extensive use of jury research, tries high-stakes, complex, leading-edge cases, and consistently delivers outstanding results for clients throughout the country.

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

The International Food Safety Training Lab (IFSTL) has seen positive results after only one year of operations. The lab is designed to train scientists globally in top food testing methods.

IFSTL has also opened up its doors to trade policymakers and other industry professionals. The overall goal is to improve food safety quality on a global scale. Advocates feel that, by helping foreign suppliers better understand efforts in the US to control potential food contamination, foreign exporters can better understand how to comply with the related US requirements. In addition, policymakers can learn more information about food safety practices to make better informed policy and trade decisions.

The lab is operated by the University of Maryland along with the FDA. Both FDA scientists and guest lecturers from the industry help run the lab. The director of IFSTL, Jane Dubois explains that students get a “one-on-one interaction with FDA, USDA and EPA specialists.” Dubois also adds that, “by learning to use internationally recognized testing methods students are able to verify whether a product meets a country’s standards, even if those standards vary country-to-country, because the method [being used] is universal.”

Currently the program is working on E. coli related research, including a more detailed look into the “Big Six.” In November, the lab is planning on conducting a course on microscopic identification of ingredients that will allow students to determine whether or not an ingredient is truly what it purports to be on the product label. A second lab is set to open in England in 2013.
 

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

Canada has announced a new national approach to food safety inspection. The new program would include all food commodities made in Canada or imported.

Currently Canada has a 8-tier food safety program operated by Canada’s Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The existing programs separately regulate meat, dairy, eggs, processed products, imported and manufactured food, fresh fruits and vegetables, and fish and seafood.

The new “single system” approach would combine each the different food sectors. According to Canadian officials, it would make the program even stronger and help with budget costs. It would also create a consistent inspection model, which will provide better training and tools to food safety inspectors, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz explained.

The CFIA is currently seeking public feedback (from both consumers and industry stakeholders) until October 31, 2012. The CFIA will finalize plans for the single system inspection program based on the feedback it receives.
 

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

Researchers at Michigan State University have decoded one of the deadliest strains of E. coli. Scientists have identified the strain as O104:H4. The strain was responsible for the 2011 outbreak in Germany, which caused 54 deaths and sickened nearly 4,000 individuals. The strain was something scientists had never seen before. In addition to decoding the strain, researchers at MSU have also found a key aspect of the strain that could curtail the harmful bacteria.

O104:H4 shares common characteristics with other deadly E. coli strains. However, the property that makes this strain unique is a biofilm it forms. MSU researchers found when the strain forms a biofilm, it produces toxic genes similar to the Shiga toxins in O157:H7. The Shiga-like toxins were most likely the cause for the severity of the 2011 outbreak in Germany.

Another interesting point about the outbreak and the O104 strain is that it caused more kidney damage in adults. Normally Shiga toxins affect mostly children. Scientists attribute this to the longer incubation period that O104 has. This extended time allows for the biofilm to form, and also produce the toxic genes.

The next step is focusing on developing mutant strains to prevent the bacterium from forming biofilm. This would prevent disease and future O104:H4 infections, scientists say.
 

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

A study recently released by the University of Arizona found that utilizing copper cooking devices may significantly reduce the risk of foodborne pathogens. The study compared how various Salmonella strains survived on copper surfaces versus stainless steel surfaces. The idea stemmed from the study’s co-author, Christopher Rensing, who had done previous research on antimicrobial properties of copper.

Copper has unique anti-microbial properties. Over time copper oxidizes and produces a residue that is toxic to some bacteria, including certain Salmonella and E. coli strains. Stainless steel, on the other hand, has no antimicrobial properties.

Professor of Microbiology at the University of Arizona, Sadhara Ravishankar, explained the group wanted “to see if copper could be used as an alternative to stainless steel in food preparation.” He also mentioned the study did not alter any cooking temperatures during the study to make sure they were testing only the influence of the metal.

Researchers tested multiple Salmonella strains on various concentrated-copper alloy samples. They found, in every situation, that the Salmonella strains died off in drastic numbers on copper, but were not as affected by stainless steel. They also conducted the same tests in various conditions including wet, dry, with and without nutrients conditions.

So what does all this mean? In short, if copper is used for cooking, it may potentially reduce the risks associated with harmful pathogens that cause foodborne illnesses.
 

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

The Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) published its results from the first round of testing for non-O157 E. coli strains this week. The agency began screening beef trim for the “Big Six” last month, and has tested 115 samples.

Overall, 4 out of the 115 samples were positive for non-O157 STEC strains. This yields about a 3% contamination rate. According to USDA, the test results showed no real surprises, and were consistent with industry testing. Currently, FSIS is testing only beef trim, not finished ground beef products.
 

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

Effective earlier this week, the government has begun enforcing the Egg Safety Rule for mid-size hatcheries. The new regulation is designed to prevent Salmonella contamination at hen laying facilities. In July 2010, the USDA enforced the same regulation on large facilities housing over 50,000 laying hens. Monday’s enforcement will affect mid-size companies that house between 3,000-50,000 hens. The regulation will not apply to small companies (under 3,000 hens) or facilities that sell directly to the consumer.

The regulation requires producers who do not pasteurize in-shell egg products to test for the Salmonella bacteria. Eggs also must be refrigerated at or below 45 degrees during storage (within 36 hours of laying). Chicks and young hens can only be sourced from facilities that test for bacteria. The facilities must also have biosecurity, rodent and pest control programs, according to the new regulation.

If Salmonella is found, affected eggs must be pasteurized or moved to a non-food use. In addition, the facility must be cleaned completely.

The FDA believes these “preventative measures would reduce the number of Salmonella infections from eggs by 60%.” According the CDC, approximately 2.2 million of the 65 billion eggs produced in the US each year are contaminated with Salmonella.

The FDA has done follow-up inspections with the larger facilities and found that most of them were in compliance with the rule. By the end of the year, the FDA hopes to perform the same inspections on mid-size facilities.
 

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

Food safety concerns with hazelnuts were highlighted during a 2009 recall where nearly 30,000 pounds of nuts were recalled for potential Salmonella contamination. There have been many smaller outbreaks since, including one involving E. coli in the Midwest. Notably, before 2009, there were no reported outbreaks linked to US hazelnuts. Currently, there is no industry safety requirement. Despite this, individuals in the industry have taken many steps to enhance food safety of hazelnuts.

For example, Willamette Hazelnut Growers comprises of nearly 99% of the hazelnut producers in the country. They investigated their own processing system after the 2009 recall, finding they needed improvements in the shelling their process. The company also decided to invest in a 3rd party microbiology lab to develop improved testing methodologies. As a result, the company now sanitizes all shelled products with an organic-water-based spray. The final products are then tested for bacteria. The company also tests the facility for contamination. So far, all the tests have come back negative.

Various groups in the industry continue to make efforts to ensure food safety. Growers have implemented a set of science-based guidelines know as GAPS (good agricultural practices). Handlers have also upped their standards by adding new steps that will reduce bacterial levels and noting the efficacy of them. Polly Owen, Manager of the Hazelnut Marketing Board, stated that industry is, “continuing to aggressively pursue the best practices possible.”
 

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

In the past year, Denmark has experienced some of the lowest reported Salmonella cases in any developed country. Denmark set a personal best in 2011, with the lowest rate since the 1980s. After a spike of cases in the 1990s, the government decided to implore some of the toughest control measures to combat the issue.

For example, in environmental testing of chickens, if one bird tests positive for Salmonella, the whole flock is considered to be contaminated. Denmark also bans selling of fresh-eggs from any Salmonella-positive-laying flock. The country also requires all imported eggs to be completely Salmonella free. Notably, not a single case of Salmonella reported in 2011 was caused from chicken. Moreover, no Salmonella outbreaks (cases involving 2 or more illnesses) were traced back any Danish meat. Rather, the few Salmonella cases (non-outbreaks) were linked back to both Danish and imported pork.

In 2011, there were less than 300 cases of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in the country. In turn, approximately 70% of the reported cases were from citizens actually eating outside of the country. Danish authorities could not link the food source in about 25% of the cases. Those sources were most likely from food sources not regularly checked for Salmonella (i.e. fruits and vegetables).
 

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

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will be launching an updated testing system for meat, poultry, and eggs.

The new system will allow agency to test for more drugs, pesticides, and potentially harmful chemicals at one time – versus individually. The Secretary of Food Safety, Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, stated that “the new testing methods being announced will help protect consumer from illegal drug residues in meat products.” She stated further that “testing for more compounds will allow USDA to identify and evaluate illegal drug residues more effectively and efficiently.” The new method will be able to test for 55 pesticide chemicals, 9 types of antibiotics, various metals, and over 50 other chemicals.

In turn, the data from the enhanced testing will be collected, analyzed, and published by the National Residue Program (NRP). NRP looks for both legal and illegal compounds. Examples include pesticides, environmental contaminants, veterinary drugs, and hormones. FSIS also claims that the new method will be “more efficient and conserve resources, while also providing better results.”

The FSIS will also be expanding its annual samples of slaughtered animals. If a sample turns out positive for residue, the supplier will be notified by the FDA and they could be subject to further testing.
 

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

Scientist Thomas Platt-Mills and his colleagues have linked lone star tick bites to red meat allergies. The findings came about while studying a particular cancer drug. Patients taking the drug had severe allergic reactions. However, this phenomenon was only occurring in Southern States. Platt-Mills and his scientists concluded in their 2008 study that it was a sugar in the drug, derived from mouse cells that are found in beef, pork, and cow milk, causing the reactions.

At the same time of this research, there was also an influx of meat allergy reports in the South. Out of curiosity, the scientists took their own blood samples and found that they carried the same Immunoglobin E (IgE) antibodies as the cancer patients who reacted to the drug. Thus, concluding that it was the sugars triggering the response.

However, because people were complaining of symptoms of the meat allergy 3-5 hours after consumptions, scientists noted that the source must be coming from sugar stored in animal fat, which takes longer to digest.

The next question was where were the antibodies coming from? Initially, Dr. Scott Commins, Assistant Professor of Medicine at UVA and colleague of Platts-Mills, thought it must be a parasite.

However, in 2009, Platt-Mills made a break through discovery after taking a walk in the woods. He noticed his IgE levels spiked after those walks where he incurred tick bites. After this discovery, they started asking patients experiencing this rare meat allergy if they had tick bites.

They found 90% of those experiencing the allergy, had been bitten by the long star tick. Not only are cases showing in the South, but the East Coast is also being affected. Now scientists are exploring why this particular tick is related to the phenomena? Their hypotheses include: a new organism in the tick’s salvia or that ticks have always carried this antigen, however because there are now an increase of ticks, the meat allergy is more detectable.

Warning signs include a lingering bite, itchiness, and/or a forming of a hard knot under the bitten area. Commins states, there is not much for prevention. However, if inflicted with allergy, it only lasts for 3-5 years. The downfall is that if bitten again, the allergy could become worse.

So far, governmental agencies have not yet issued any health warnings about meat allergies associated with the lone star tick….
 

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

In many jurisdictions, food preparation workers are required to wear food-service gloves to prevent contamination and keep food safety quality in-check.

However, there has been recent buzz on how safe those gloves really are. Many argue the gloves are only effective when worn by clean hands. They further argue that gloves give employees a false sense of security and become automatic and ubiquitous. The purpose of the gloves is to protect against disease transfer to consumer like Hepatitis A, norovirus, E. coli, and other foodborne illnesses.

In studies conducted by the Journal of Food Protection in both 2007 and 2010, results concluded that gloves may not be as effective as once thought. The 2007 study found that “hand washing and glove use were related to each other…hand washing was less likely to occur with activities in which gloves were worn.” The 2010 study produced similar findings, noting that “glove use can create a false sense of security, resulting in more high-risk behavior.” The study also found the occlusion of the skin can create the prefect breeding ground for “microbial proliferation” and can “increase pathogen transfer onto foods.” Interestingly, they also found twice as much coliform bacterium on tortilla samples handled by gloves versus bare hands.

Another issue that has risen is the cost of using disposable gloves. Some argue that those resources could be spent alternatively to invest in kitchen improvements like automatic or food-pedal operated sinks to give works adequate time to wash hands properly.

However, the problem isn’t the gloves, but what workers do while wearing the gloves. Some of those actions can contaminate gloves, which in turn can contaminate food. In 2006 and 2007, studies conducted by the Center for Disease Control found hand-washing requirements by employees wearing gloves were not being adequately met. Those workers in the study only washed their hands in 27% of the activities that recommended hand-washing.

Denise Korniewicz, Dean of Nursing at the University of South Dakota explains, “the best way to prevent transmission of bacteria, virus, or other bugs is to wash hands thoroughly.” In correlation, the CDC recommends decreasing the amount of times a worker is put into a scenario where he or she has to wash his or her hands. This means revising food preparation methods and decreasing handling of raw material like meat and fish. The food service industry still relies on the glove-method. It is necessary in sectors like in raw meat and fish preparation. The gloves do help avoid cross-contamination, if used properly.

No one product will keep food safe. However, regular and thorough handwashing, along with a conscious use of gloves will keep food safety risks down.
 

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

University of Maryland scientists have developed a new possible salmonella vaccine using salt. The salt forms around a microbe (Haloarchaea) that has been genetically altered to act as a vaccine for Salmonella. More specifically, the Haloarchaea acts as a delivery device that promotes the same responses to vaccines as the immune system does. Salmonella protein antigens are spliced into Haloarchaea genome, which causes a reaction that bubbles into salt crystals, which people can digest.

If proven safe and effective the vaccine would be victory in a multitude of ways. Not only would it help decrease the number of illnesses, it could also help one solve one of the biggest vaccine-distribution related issues: refrigeration. Interestingly because the vaccine is salt-based, it would not require refrigeration like most other vaccines. In addition, the vaccine is also inexpensive and easy to store. DesSarma points out it is also very safe because it doesn’t cause any disease itself.

Researchers still need to test vaccine to find out what the proper dosage should be. The vaccine will most likely will be available in pill form. Scientists feel this is a great platform for innovating other vaccines for infectious diseases. The research received a $100,000 grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Research Foundation.

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

China announced a new 5-year food safety program to address continuing concerns about its food industry. According to reports, the government will be updating, reviewing and eliminating any old and overlapping regulations and standards. Many standards and regulations currently contradict one another. This is a result of multiple government agencies regulating the industry. There will be 14 different government departments including the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Science and Technology, and Ministry of Agriculture, that will work together to revamp regulations and standards by 2015.

The government will prioritize safety standards for dairy products, infant food, meat, alcohol, vegetable oil, seasoning, health products, and food additives. They will also take extra steps to improve testing standards for contaminants, food additives, microorganisms, pesticides and animal drug residue.

The new program comes after nationwide concern about food safety in China. Indeed, suspect food from China has been involved in many recent food safety headlines. Scandals have included mercury findings in baby formula, produced by one of the biggest dairy companies in China; clenbuterol involving pork; and overall concerns about Chinese food products.

Reportedly, the plan will add 269 new national food standards and require more supervision and harsher consequences for violators. The Chinese government released a statement acknowledging the difficulty of the task; however, overall, they are hoping to simplify the complex and confusing system. Time will tell whether they get it right.
 

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

New research published in the Journal Clinical Infectious Diseases has shown that a certain parasite known as Toxoplasmosis gondii is more likely to be found in organic as opposed to other types of meat.

The study’s author, Dr. Jeffrey Jones claims that the increasing “demand for ‘free-range’ and ‘organically raised meats’ (especially pork and poultry) will likely increase the prevalence of the parasite, especially when people undercook and eat these foods.” This foodborne illness is transmitted if meat is not cooked properly. One can also contract Toxoplasmosis by not washing raw fruits and veggies that have been in contaminated soil.

About 1 in 5 people carry the parasite. However, because our immune systems do such a good job of fighting the parasite, many do not show symptoms. Symptoms of the parasite are similar to those of the flu. In rare cases, if the parasite progresses, it can cause damage to the brain, eyes, and other organs. Most at risk are pregnant women and those with weakened immune systems.

The new research reviews foods that are more likely to carry these types of parasites that are naturally found in the environment. These foods include rare lamb; raw ground beef; unpasteurized goat’s milk; locally cured, dried, smoked meat; and raw oysters, clams, and mussels.

Research has shown an increase of anywhere from 17%-100% of parasites in free-ranged chickens versus indoor-raised chickens. Other research has shown organically raised pigs have tested positive more frequently for the t. gondii parasite than conventionally raised pigs. The problem occurs because pigs and chickens are being raised in less contained areas. Therefore they have a wider-range of area to roam and thus be exposed to contaminated soil, grass, water.

Toxoplasmosis is 1 of the 5 “neglected parasitic diseases” targeted by the CDC as a public health priority. Recently, a US estimate showed toxoplasmosis was the 2nd-leading cause of foodborne illness next to Salmonella, causing over 300 deaths and thousands of hospitalizations a year.
 

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

Britain’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) has recently reported an increase of cryptosporidium outbreaks throughout England. The areas include North East, Yorkshire, West Midland, and East Midland, affecting mainly adult women. Infected individuals have shown moderate illness. Only a few have been hospitalized.

With warmer weather it is common for an increase of crypto numbers, however this year stands out.

There are over 250 reported cases, which is a significant increase to the nearly 70 reports last year. The HPA is currently investigating to see if there is a connection between the outbreak areas. HPA has teamed up with the National Health Services (NRS), the Food Standard Agency (FSA), local health officers, drinking water inspectorates, and area doctors to further the investigation.

So far they have not pinned-point a single source. However, based on the distribution, they have eliminated public water supplies as a possible cause.

Cryptosporidium is a parasite found in soil, food, water, or surfaces contaminated with infected feces. The most common way of infection is swallowing water while swimming. There is no specific treatment for the infection. Symptoms can include dehydration, stomach pains, fever, weight loss, and diarrhea. Symptoms can last for up to three weeks. However, most people fully recover within a month. It is important to drink a lot of fluid if infected to avoid dehydration. For now, Great Britain has advised its citizens to avoid untreated water sources and avoid swallowing water while swimming.
 

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

A study by the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation concluded that untreated water systems can carry human viruses in drinking water. The study found that water that was not disinfected in 14 communities tested positive for human viruses. in turn, the study concluded that people who live in communities with untreated water are likely being exposed to waterborne illnesses and other harmful health risks. This is one of the first studies to link viruses in public water supplies to effects on human health. Click on the following to view the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation Study.

One virus commonly found during the study was norovirus. Norovirus is one of the most contagious viruses that can spread person-to-person. Notably, the study also blamed the virus for nearly 2/3 of the illnesses in children under the age of 5 years old.

The study linked the source of the contamination to leaking wastewater from sewers. The wastewater contained human waste viruses that traveled through the soil and into the groundwater. The groundwater was then used as a source of drinking water in the affected communities. Notably, groundwater is the most common way communities receive their drinking water.

The study was initiated after the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposed regulations to require all communities to disinfect their systems. This regulation never passed and became a heated topic. Some felt that it should be up the individual community to decide whether they should disinfect their water systems, while others felt there should be a statewide mandate based on the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

In total 66 Wisconsin communities do not disinfect their water systems. The study’s findings were 4,500 times higher than the EPA’s acceptable risk. The DNR still recommends disinfecting water supplies, despite the rejected regulations. The EPA announced, however, that they will require monitoring of these communities between 2013 and 2015.
 

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

For the second year in a row, food safety incidents have been on the rise in the United Kingdom. The Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) executive director, Tim J. Smith, claims it is not because of one particular reason. Instead, he and the organization attribute, “a combination of factors, including better reporting, and monitoring are behind the trend.”

Incidents are reported through various outlets: border inspection posts, health authorities, and fire services” Incidents generally describe contaminated food or illegal food that has gotten into the hand of the public and caused harm, and also includes allergens, pesticides, and microbiological contamination. FSA also reports they have seen an increase of food borne illness reports linking to foods abroad (specifically from China, India, and Bangladesh).

This year, the UK has another hurdle to jump: hosting the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

The FSA has already taken steps to ensure proper food safety measures are in place and being enforced. They have added a new online incident reporting system. This will allow local authorities, along with food vendors report and intervene in any incidents in a timely manner. The United Kingdom reportedly has some of the most progressive food safety measures. When an incident occurs, they are very proactive in working with other agencies to rectify the problem.
 

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

The New England Journal of Medicine has published an article about how investigators were able to solve the 8-year long mystery of a Salmonella outbreak. The source: mail-order chicks. This was the longest outbreak of a single strain of Salmonella in US history. Between 2004 and 2011, there were over 300 reports covering 48 different states all consisting of the same strain. In addition, there were thousands of unreported related illnesses. Investigators were able to link the outbreak to chick hatcheries based on patient interviews, disease surveillance, and trace-back methods.

The first big lead was in 2005, with the Colorado Department of Health. They were able to identify three salmonella types with the same genetic make-up. They found those individuals affected by these strains had one commonality: contact with ducklings at feed stores. From this information, they found that all the cases nationwide shared the same underlying facts.

The next break occurred in 2006 in New Mexico, which had the largest number of reported cases. Officials reportedly focused their research on local stores that sold young chickens. They used a series of questions to then trace where the retail stores obtained their live animals. Investigators ultimately determined that the contaminated chicks had been coming from 7 different hatcheries.

The article states further that one of the hatcheries, “Hatchery C” took many preventative measures to ensure safety of their animals. Although the hatchery had increased biosecurity and rodent control, food decontamination processes, routine surveillance, and used an autogenous poultry vaccine, “a temporary lapse in the hatchery’s procedure in 2010” Was believed to have caused the contamination. Investigators also found that “Hatchery C” had what is known as a closed breeding facility (no outside flocks of birds breed in the facility) which helped explain how the same strain of bacteria could have persisted in the flock for 8 years.

Notably, only one human case has been reported this year involving the same strain of Salmonella. The author of the paper writes, “the outbreak showed that control intervention at mail-order hatcheries can play a role in reducing salmonella, but also showed the difficulty of executing procedures,” emphasizing the important role hatcheries have in outbreak prevention.
 

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

The demand for food safety products in the US market has bolstered in the recent years. Industry experts feel this substantial growth will continue through 2016. Factors such as consumer interest, awareness, new government regulations, and industry initiatives all contribute to the increased demand. Various parts the food industry including the processors, servicers, and farmers markets are all taking note.

Among one of the fastest growing products in food safety are smart labels. A smart label is a flat responsive electronic device that can perform and track various functions. These labels help with the traceability of food supply. They can also play a crucial role in a outbreak by linking the contaminated food back to its origin. Along with smart labels, diagnostic products are also expanding. However, these products are more expensive. Diagnostic products test food for a multitude of food safety related factors.

Representing the largest market for food safety products is in the processing plants. In this market, there are many fast growing areas such as seafood, prepared food, and beverage segments that receive significant regulation. In turn, companies in these segments are looking for new ways to reduce both their regulatory burden and food safety risks.

Food service also accounts for a significant part of the food industry. Growth in the service area has been accelerated over the recent years due to increased profits. Here too, larger profits have allowed the food service industry to develop and purchase a greater range of food safety-oriented products and services. Additionally, product demand in this industry has also risen due to efforts in improving sanitation and avoiding cross-contamination.

Looking forward, it is anticipated that, at least through 2016, farmer’s markets will be one of the fastest growing sectors for food safety products. Industry experts feel this is because, “crop and product uses will outpace those of livestock due to increased pathogen testing of produce at the farm level and continued presence of GMOs at the grain levels.” In other words, the production of produce will likely outrun meat production due the vast regulation of pathogens. With the popular trend of growing and buying local, more regulations are being adopted and enforced at these levels as well.

This projected expansion of food safety products in the United States is forecast to continue through 2016. Based on increased efforts to decrease the possibility of foodborne illnesses and increased consumer awareness, new products will continue to be marketed. Hopefully these efforts will help ensure that the US food supply remains one of the most affordable and safest in the world.

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

Grow Green Industries Inc. and P.L. Thomas & Co. Inc. just announced that they will be launching two new all-natural food safety and shelf-life enhancer products at the Food Technologists Annual Meeting and Food Expo in Las Vegas in June. The products are eatSafe™ Natural Food Wash and eatFresh™ Natural Antimicrobial. According to the company,they will be a two-part alternative to longer-lasting, better tasting, and safer food.

The products use synergistic complexes of FDA-approved GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) and organic components used in food processing to make sure products do not carry foodborne bacteria. Both will come in a liquid or powder form. They will protect against pathogens, extend the shelf-life, and make the food product overall safer to eat. eatSafe™ also removes other contaminants like oils, dust, and pesticides. In addition, unlike its competitors, eatFresh™ is a near taste-less replacements for preservatives: allowing no impact to the overall flavor of the food.
Reportedly, both products control pathogens by a cell electro-potential disruption mechanism. As a result, they have a large range of ability to handle various levels of pathogens. This avoids having to combine certain preservatives that could be expensive and alter the taste of the products.

The patent-pending products have been put through a series of lab tests both by the manufacturers and third-party lab testers. Results from the studies showed that eatSafe™ Natural Food Wash “removed 99.999% of bacteria, including Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria and coliform bacteria from the surface of produce.” Other studies have found eatFresh™ Natural Antimicrobial has extended the shelf-life of food by 200% compared to other test controls.

Both companies are very excited and proud of the new product line. Founder and CEO of Grow Green, Mareya Ibrahim says, “[food safety] is a problem that is worth our attention. And we felt an all-natural solution that avoided potentially harmful chemicals was a natural extension of that drive.” President of P.L Thomas, Paul M. Flowerman, explains, “these new all-natural products open up new opportunities for consumer product development and can significantly reduce overall costs for all-natural foods and beverages.” Both admit that all-natural and clean labels are the new trend in the industry. However, they are hoping these products will, “offer an end-to-end solution for improving taste, quality and shelf life.”
 

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

Global Green, Inc. recently announced they have received their final report on their study involving the “Salmogenics Vaccine” aka the Salmonella vaccine.

The original idea was developed by the National Health Institute Laboratories, LLC. Global Green, Inc. plans to manufacture, market, and sell the patented and licensed vaccine. The company has received approval from Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to trade publically on the Over-the-Counter (OTC) market and have applied for direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) approval. The vaccine is currently in the final stages of the USDA approval process.

The study tested over 3,000 broiler chickens eggs that were injected with the vaccine. The study showed a remarkable reduction in salmonella bacteria and appeared to provide considerable protection against all salmonella strains. The study concludes reducing salmonella in chickens before they are processed and sold to the public will decrease the overall salmonella level.

Salmogenics uses a unique application process, in which the egg is directly injected with the vaccine. It is the only salmonella-fighting vaccine that uses this method. The vaccine also benefits the chicken’s immune system, health, and overall welfare. Using this technique will also result in reduced levels of salmonella in flocks and contamination risk in the processing stage. When salmonella is found in a flock during the processing stage, often times the contaminated meat has been distributed publicly.

While the final costs of the vaccine are unknown, the vaccine could be a cost-benefit alternative. Since the vaccine can be administered either alone or with other vaccines it can decrease the potential costs to the farmer. Because the vaccine is injected during the egg stage, the cost of human-handling is diminished and stress to the bird to is eliminated. The preventative measure of the vaccine could also cut back on contamination expenses. When meat is contaminated, the cost to correct the issue can be exorbitant. Since the vaccine would reduce the risk of contamination these potential costs would be avoided.

The Salmogenics vaccine has gained much industry support. Industry experts feel that this new approach is vital considering traditional approaches have ignored this method. James McNaughton, PhD explains, “A salmonella vaccine addressing vigorous strains that are hard to destroy is important.” AHPharma conducted the final report that point to positive signs that this will ultimately be passed by the USDA. This would be another preventive measure in foodborne illness.
 

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

It was won on beef.

It has long been said in America, that for those who seek new frontiers, adventure and a good hard day’s work, all roads lead west.

A lot has changed since the days of Bill Hickok and the Wild West. But, as with those truths we hold to be self-evident, some things remain the same.

The Cowboy has always been a symbol of pride, independence and the vast, untamed wilderness which once stretched across our nation. The American cowboy is legendary, not just here in the United States, but around the world for strength and toughness. More than anything else, the cowboy embodies the principle that here, in America, a good work-ethic trumps a fancy last name every time.

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that, even today, for every steak and every hamburger enjoyed amongst friends, family and loved ones, there are ranchers out there giving everything they can to ensure their cattle grow strong and healthy. It is a tough job, and no easier today than 200 years ago.

Today’s rancher must also be a veterinarian, a business person and an innovator. He or she must be able to fix a saddle as well as implement cutting edge technology to ensure that their products are as good, safe and wholesome as they can possibly be. And, they must also protect their families, juggling the responsibilities of parent-teacher conferences and little league games with cold nights and endless demands of the job. While the job of today’s rancher is vastly different than it once was, the values, toughness and integrity have endured.

As has been true since the unlikely beginnings of our great nation, strength, integrity and a willingness to persevere through anything to get the job done right, are the trademarks of today’s cattlemen. Thank you for a job well done. Today, we recognize you not just as American icons but also as Food Safety Heroes.

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

This month marks the 15th annual National Food Safety Education Month!

The National Restaurant Association initially created National Food Safety Education Month in 1994 to enhance food safety education in the restaurant and food service industries. Today, food safety instruction is given special highlight each September by many sectors of the food industry.

This week the American Meat Institute (AMI) described its campaign aimed at educating consumers on the proper handling, cooking and storing of meat and poultry products. AMI released a 60-second radio piece nationwide, reminding consumers of the importance of meat and poultry thermometers and directing them to www.meatsafety.org. The radio piece can be heard here.

Developed by AMI, meatsafety.org offers safe handling guidelines and information on a variety of other topics such as food-borne illness statistics and food safety publications. Consumers can test their meat and poultry IQ on the site with a quiz (let’s just say I scored well). Meatsafety.org is a comprehensive site that also offers, among many other things, an overview of the U.S inspection system and AMI’s position on hot topics like antibiotics and meat myths.

AMI also built another great site, www.meatmattersinfo.org, to help consumers partner with them in food safety. Consumers can download the free brochure “Safe Handling of Meat and Poultry Products.” Further, AMI’s YouTube Channel, the Meat News Network, has many consumer-focused education videos, including video of safe handling practices.

In addition to the AMI, the following websites contain valuable materials to easily teach anyone about food safety and National Food Safety Education Month:

• ServSafe National Food Safety Education Month;
• FSIS Food Safety Education;
• Facebook – National Food Safety Education Month;
• Fightbac.org.

AMI consumer survey data indicated that only 34% of consumer respondents knew safe cooking temperatures, and only 1 in 5 consumers use a thermometer when cooking meat. These numbers are wholly unacceptable; consumers are the last line of defense against food-borne illness.

We applaud the the efforts of each of these initiatives, and remind everyone to boldly share their food safety knowledge.

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

In the continuing battle to prevent naturally occurring microorganisms like E. coli O157:H7 from growing in cattle, researchers have discovered some promising new tools.

Although E. coli O157:H7 can cause illness in humans, the bacteria often exists as part of the gastrointestinal flora in healthy cattle. In turn, microbiologists at the University of Texas (“UT”), Southwestern Medical Center, working with the USDA, uncovered a mechanism which actually prevents E. coli O157:H7 from surviving in grain-fed cattle.

E. coli O157:H7 harbors a gene called sdiA, which makes the SdiA protein. When traveling within a cattle’s body, the SdiA protein senses a chemical made by microbes in the animal's rumen, the first of a cow's four stomachs, which serves as a large fermentation chamber.

Only after detecting this signal will the bacteria pass through the rumen and colonize in the recto-anal junction. By interfering with the SdiA protein (or, the genetic sensor), however, researchers were able to stop the bacteria from ever reaching the required colonization site. Notably, rather than colonizing, the bacteria simply died off, preventing any potential for future shedding or contamination.

"We're diminishing colonization by not letting pathogen go where it needs to go," said Dr. Vanessa Sperandio, associate professor of microbiology and biochemistry at UT Southwestern and senior author of the study. "If we can find a way to prevent these bacteria from ever colonizing in cattle, it's possible that we can have a real impact on human disease.” Notably, “[t]his could be something as simple as including some sort of antagonist in cattle feed, which would result in less shedding of the bacteria and less contamination down the road."

The findings, of course, are important because an estimated 70 percent to 80 percent of cattle herds can carry these pathogens. According to Dr. Sperandio, the finding “serves as a proof-of-principle that we might be able to target this system and help prevent food contamination."

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

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed last July by the vegan advocacy group Cancer Project asserting that hot dogs cause cancer.

The Cancer Project originally filed claims against several hot dog manufacturers on behalf of three New Jersey residents who alleged they were exposed to carcinogens by eating hot dogs — even though none of the plaintiffs had actually developed cancer.

In addition to money damages, the lawsuit also sought an order requiring hot dogs to bear the following label: “Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.”

Although a few studies have attempted to link processed meats with an increased risk of cancer by focusing on the potential health effects of nitrites used as preservatives, the fact remains that nitrates occur naturally in fruits and have actually been proven to improve health in many ways. In turn, numerous additional scientific studies, including one from Harvard University in 2004, have found no link between meat consumption and an increased cancer risk.

Concerned about the potentially frivolous nature of the claims, and citing the lack of scientific support for the allegations, the hot dog manufacturers promptly filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 18, 2010, Judge Jose Linares, of the United States Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, granted the motion and dismissed the case in its entirety.

"We are pleased that the court moved quickly and dismissed this lawsuit," said J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute. As explained by Boyle, Meat products are regulated and inspected by the USDA and bear the federal government's seal of inspection, showing they are wholesome and nutritious.”

And, Boyle is not the only authority on the matter. According to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, processed meat and poultry products — including hot dogs — can be, and often are, a healthy part of a balanced (and, frankly, tasty) diet.

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

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Hawaii ranks among the top states for food-borne illness surveillance, investigation and reporting. Other leading states include Maine, Kansas, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota. Minnesota and Oregon are also regarded as having strong surveillance systems as well.

While many states ranked very high, however, some problems do remain.

According to CSPI, “some states may not have enough investigators or the money to train and equip their staff, which can lead to lower-quality investigations.” In addition to affecting the quality of such investigations, these and other limitations can also lead to mistaken conclusions regarding the source or cause of an outbreak.

CSPI also reports, however, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which passed in the House of Representatives and is now pending in the Senate, will likely help improve national surveillance capabilities. If passed, the Act would require FDA to improve coordination between federal, state and local surveillance systems; develop a national network of laboratories; and improve epidemiological tools available to the states. The bill would also integrate food-borne illness surveillance with other bio-surveillance capabilities

Thus, as we strive to improve the safety of our food, as well as the ability of our food safety system to accurately detect and resolve emerging problems, we send our congratulations to the hard-working professionals in Hawaii and other states who are leading the way.

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

Travelling throughout the United States and Internationally this week to speak at various food safety conferences (and mingling endlessly with numerous regulators and industry professionals), I continue to hear a common theme.

When it comes to the safety of our food here at home, it is intellectually healthier, if you will, to stand behind the teachings of science, than to be force-fed the frenzied rhetoric of cynics to whom things like perspective and reason are but tasteless, bland and easily ignored concepts.

Each year, American families eat somewhere in the neighborhood of 328.5 Billion safe meals – and countless more safe snacks. While any illness or death linked to the consumption of food is one too many, the fact remains that (at three meals a day) you and I are 20 times more likely to die this year from pneumonia or drowning than from a food-borne illness. Although not perfect, the statistics are quite impressive.

Mostly, the risk of eating is low because the hard-working people who actually grow, raise, manufacture, transport, process, prepare and serve our food – despite what you might be told by the media – are actually well-intentioned human beings. With incredible assistance and cooperation from numerous federal, state and local agencies, these hard-working individuals help make our food supply one of the safest in the world.

Included, of course, in this cast of thousands, are dedicated professions who work for numerous federal, state and local agencies such as the CDC, the FDA, the USDA, the FSIS, 50 individual State health departments, and countless local health departments. These individuals, in many instances volunteer extended hours at wages far below their true worth, working tirelessly to ensure that the food sustaining our nation is as plentiful and safe as it can be.

Yet, despite these incredible human efforts, both the food industry and government workers that oversee and track the safety of our food remain under continuous attack. As consumers, we are inundated by media “fear-mongering,” and made to believe that with each meal consumed, we draw closer to the precipice of some fathomless tragedy. We are also taught to be suspicious and wary of the people who have dedicated their lives to ensuring that our families are fed, and that our food is wholesome.

We are told of the ineffectiveness of federal, state and local regulators, alleged problems in food processing plants, restaurants and grocery stores, and how industry workers simply don’t care about the food they make. In order to believe this, however, we must ignore a fundamental truth: the food that our fellow Americans work so hard to produce is the same food they proudly feed to their families.

You see, food safety is a complicated and dynamic issue. It is easy to be a cynic. It is easy to attack others with the benefit of extended hindsight. It is easy to simplify things to a level that a third grader would find devoid in both substance and fact. The real challenge, however, lies in embracing a reasoned and proactive approach that not only recognizes the limits of technology and science, but, at the same time, within these limits, best reduces the risks most likely to occur to the greatest extent possible.

And, we must recognize, as well, that there are many sources of food-borne illness other than food products. More common than problems which occur at the highly regulated production level, are those which occur at the consumer level.

• How many offending foods, for instance, were perfectly safe until rendered unsafe by improper storage or handling?

• How many offending meals were perfectly safe until contaminated by ill food handlers?

• How many buffets at restaurants, churches, family gatherings or weddings were completely safe until contaminated by sick guests?

When we probe deeper, and actually balance the real and multiple causes of food-borne illness (most of which occur long after production), the safety of the food produced by industry is astonishing. And, frankly, until we recognize that each one of us shares responsibility for basic food safety in our homes, and until every food-handler, homemaker and guest can be rendered “sterile,” we also need to ensure that the laws regulating our food supply are driven by (and based upon) reality and science, not merely inflammatory rhetoric.

Nevertheless, many will continue to indiscriminately criticize our entire food system and, by extension, the countless people working to find solutions to the challenges we do face. And, although the same critics will also argue that consumers bear little responsibility for their own safety, please understand this is a dangerous and flawed philosophy which serves no one but those who profit from the sensationalism and mistrust they create.

In any event, for those who continue to ignore science and reason, who contend that food safety is the responsibility of food producers alone, and who wrongly proclaim that food safety is only as simple as “not eating poop,” I say this: given the statistics, what goes into one mouth is often far less harmful than what comes out of another.

*And, if you have any questions related to proper food handling, please feel free to peruse our site for safe handling instructions and tips; and, please encourage others to do the same.

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

The battle for food safety continues to be waged on multiple fronts.

In addition to testing and developing new technologies (beyond cooking) to reduce naturally occurring pathogens in food, researchers are now looking for ways to defeat pathogens in our bodies.

As we reported previously, continuing NASA research might soon lead to a Salmonella vaccine. And now, we have learned, the United States military has joined the fight. According to the Washington Post, a new scientific breakthrough recently announced by the Naval Medical Research Center suggests that a Campylobacter vaccine may be on the way as well.

Campylobacter is well known as a leading cause of food-borne illness. According to some studies, the pathogen may be responsible for as many as two million cases in the United States each year, and cause several hundred million more worldwide. The infection can also (in some instances) be difficult to treat because of widespread antibiotic resistance.

Nevertheless, after a quarter century of research, Navy scientist Patricia Guerry may have discovered the path to a vaccine which will inhibit the bacteria’s ability to attach to our intestinal lining and cause illness. Indeed, as explained by the Washington Post:

Guerry, a molecular microbiologist, began her work in the 1980s and over time created new research tools that allowed her to identify the pathogen's unique genetic, biochemical and structural features. This led to the development of a vaccine that neutralizes the bacteria's ability to attach to the intestinal lining.

The vaccine candidate against the pathogen Campylobacter jejuni, developed by Guerry, her colleagues at the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center in Silver Spring and Canadian scientist Mario Monteiro, successfully protected against infection in monkeys during testing last year and is slated for human clinical trials.

If true, this may be the first known (and, promising) food-borne illness vaccine actively tested on humans. And, although Guerry has been conducting her research as part of an ongoing effort to better protect U.S. soldiers oversees, her research, of course, may very well have a profound impact on the rest of the nation – and world. Click on the following link to read the Full Story.

In any event, this is great news for industry and consumers alike. We proudly salute Guerry and, of course, the rest of her team.

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

Like many people, I enjoy an occasional, cold, high-quality beer. Whether it’s imported or domestic, a lager, ale, pilsner or stout, few things beat sipping from a cold mug on Sunday.

There is a one pub/restaurant in particular that I frequent, not just for their excellent selection of beer, but also for the wonderful hamburgers they serve. I’ve heard them called the best in the city. They have butter buns and are grilled in such a way that even when cooked medium well, they stay juicy and flavorful.

Well, I stopped in the other day around two p.m. Given that it was mid-afternoon, and a Sunday, the place was nearly deserted. So, I grabbed the seat near the window, which is almost always taken, and ordered a Smithwick's Irish Ale. When I looked up, I realized that I had a clear view right into the kitchen. This, I knew, could be a good or a bad thing. I loved the food here, and knowing what goes on in the kitchen could quickly ruin what has become one of my favorite destinations.

Naturally, my curiosity got the best of me. Much to my delight, I had no complaints. The cook, I soon found out, was named Ron. He kept the kitchen spotless. He washed his hands multiple times while preparing my meal . Nothing which needed to be refrigerated stayed out for more than a minute or two, and all surfaces were sanitized immediately after being used.

After finishing my hamburger, which was amazing, Ron came out of the kitchen. He was off work. I called him over and after complimenting his culinary skill I commented on how impressed I was by the cleanliness he demonstrated.

He looked at me with an almost shocked expression on his face and said,

“Well of course my kitchen is clean. How would I feel if someone got sick on my watch?” He paused and then and said, “My wife and children eat here.”

I was, naturally, very impressed. I offered to buy him a beer. He declined politely, telling me he didn’t much like beer. Well, I thought to myself, nobody’s perfect.

In any case, Ron is our newest Food Safety Hero. If you see him this weekend, or someone like him, please take a moment to say "thanks."

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

BY Guest Blogger James Marsden

About a year after the 1993 Jack-in-the-Box E. coli O157:H7 outbreak, I moved from the AMI Foundation in Washington, DC to KSU in Manhattan, Kansas to join their beef safety research group. Some of the first people I met in Kansas were Lee Borck, Kenny Knight and Andrew Murphy, three beef producers and co-founders of The Beef Marketing Group (BMG), www.beefmarketinggroup.com.

We had discussions then about pre-harvest food safety and its importance in an integrated food safety system for control of E. coli O157:H7. At a time when very little was being done in this segment, BMG initiated a comprehensive program called “Progressive Beef” that included HACCP at beef feedlots, quality systems, domestic source verification and a plan to address animal handling and welfare. They also implemented a Natural Beef program in which hormones and antibiotics are never administered, no animal byproducts are used in feed and cattle are sourced and age verified from birth.

Recently, I visited one the BMG feedlots near Great Bend, KS and reviewed the food safety and animal welfare programs that had been put in place over the past several years. HACCP is strictly voluntary for beef producers, but BMG’s HACCP system is as well designed and comprehensive as if were a regulatory requirement. There are also extensive animal handling systems and training for BMG employees and drivers who transport cattle. The animal identification and traceability systems are amongst the best in the industry.

All of this was impressive, but what I found to be most notable, was that all of the work and capital that were required to achieve these remarkable results happened because of BMG’s vision and commitment to food safety, sustainability and animal welfare. None of it was required by federal regulations.

At the time BMG made these commitments, considerable investments were required and there was no assurance that they would ever be recovered. As it turned out, there are plenty of customers who like the safety and quality elements of the BMG systems, including Natural Beef and are willing to pay a premium to get them.

For years, the beef industry has had to operate in a world in which the retail value of beef products didn’t allow for profitability between all sectors. The BMG systems add value to beef and that added value supports profitability for beef producers, packers and retailers.

The founders of the Beef Marketing Group decided to produce products that meet consumer expectations. The result is one of the most successful beef production companies in the world.

• 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

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

I affectionately call him Buck Magnum.  You may know him by some other name.    Whatever his true identity, I would like to thank him for a job well-done.  

Buck’s story begins over one hundred years ago.  At the turn of the Century, we began shipping more and more food products between states.  Due to the emergence of rapid transportation, improved preservation techniques and the ability of media to reach additional consumers, food became more plentiful, affordable and accessible.  For the first time, food processors could viably ship perishable products anywhere in the nation.

While interstate shipments grew, however, food safety regulations became inadequate.  Industrial advances quickly outpaced limited state and local regulations.  In the meat industry, laws defining what constituted “adulteration” or “misbranding” were determined, if at all, by each individual state. Moreover, what was forbidden in one state was lawful in another.  This hodgepodge of inconsistent laws soon made it apparent that, without a national approach to food safety, a single set of rules, and a single agency to enforce them (enter Buck Magnum), American citizens could have no confidence in the origins or safety of their food. 

The federal approach to food safety was solidified in 1906, when Congress passed the Wholesome Meat Act and the Pure Food and Drugs Act.  These Acts (along with their successors) formed the framework for the national food safety policy that continues this day. The 1906 Wholesome Meat Act (now known as the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 601, et seq.) requires continuous federal inspection in meat packing plants, often times by multiple inspectors, to ensure that meat products are safe and wholesome, not adulterated and marked with the federal legend of inspection verifying the same.  

Today, the federal statutory and regulatory scheme is enforced by the Food Safety Inspection Service (a sub-agency of the USDA), via inspectors such as Buck.  In turn, I have watched quietly over the years as this picture has become, in some sense, legendary.  I have seen the photograph countless times on the internet, and have referenced it in publications, speeches and Powerpoints.  I even have a copy sitting next to the plant on my desk. 

Thus, if you know the true identity of this food safety icon, and can privately express our thanks, we'd be grateful.  Alternatively, if you could land me an autograph, you’d make my day.

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

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