Food Safety and Environmental Health Blog

HACCP CLASS FORMING

Roy Costa — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:52:35 -0500

HACCP CLASS FORMING

Many produce firms have adopted Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point systems, only to find that when they are audited, there are major deficiencies and non-conformances.

We are offering a HACCP class that addresses the major issues in developing and implementing produce HACCP plans. This course will provide you with the following:

· A solid overview of the 5 preliminary steps and 7 HACCP principles as outlined by the USFDA and CODEX Alimentarius.

· A step by step process for building your HACCP plan

· They key elements of HACCP audits under GFSI and Standard Primus and how to comply

· A certification that is recognized throughout the world

This is a workshop format and most of the class work is done by teams, so there is a great degree of interaction.

Please plan on joining us, and if you have already been certified under this program, pass this information along. This class is offered a few times a year so please take advantage of this opportunity if you need it. If you have a HACCP plan we will show you how to tighten it up, if not, its best to come prepared at least with an idea about your process and flow and we will walk you through the process.

Thanks and we look forward to hearing from you. Click link below for registration form.

www.safefoodsblog.com/uploads/file/Deland_Produce HACCP trainingflyer.doc

Airline Food Safety and Industry Denial

Roy Costa — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 05:22:28 -0500

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mice-roaches-fda-inspecting-airline-food/story?id=17739284&page=4

I had the opportunity to help develop the above report, and review the findings of FDA inspections over the last few years at the nation's top air carrier caterers. The findings, as reported by ABC 20-20 are clearly indicative of lack of control over production environments, people and production processes, the very things food safety management systems are supposed to address.

The comments by industry are predictable. The "we didn't do it" philosophy, "head in the sand" approach is apparent, in spite of spin doctor statements. When you get caught with these types of issues, the public is not going to listen to the rhetoric about how great your food safety programs are, quite the contrary. Not one of these spokespersons would admit that their company had a problem or offer solutions, its all about denial. We see this again and again, especially after outbreaks.

The heads of these companies apparently are so disconnected from reality that they feel they can boast about how great their food safety programs are, even in the face of 1,500 FDA violations and many instances of gross sanitation conditions. Again, this is the same mantra we hear after an outbreak in FDA regulated facilities.

I lay much of the blame at the feet of FDA. This agency has the authority to stop such conditions and they opt time and again to walk away from problems and not take the tough stand that as consumers we expect, except in the most egregious of cases.

All we have to do is look at the poor record on FDA in the pharmaceutical compounding business or at Sunland (peanuts), or in the myriad of other outbreaks where the agency had performed inspections. No one is accepting responsibility, we get the same pathetic answers from FDA as from industry.

Taking a tough stand by inspectors is personally costly, it means confrontation, its perilous to careers and even to ones personal safety. I know this only too well, so I am very grateful to have an opportunity to again stand some ground against the food industry representatives who want to claim all is well in the face of mounting sanitation and health code violations and deceive themselves and the public.

This type of public confrontation is what we need to dispel the false sense of security the food industry and FDA has created for itself.

I applaud ABC 20-20 and all the other media who go to bat for the nation's consumers. This type of work is actually a preventive approach, as it pushes the issues in a way that compels both FDA and industry to respond, unlike third party audits and FDA inspections that occur behind closed doors.

I hope I have more opportunity to tell it like it is, and I hope the airline food industry is listening. I know they are hearing, but are they listening? Time will tell, but from the sound of their statements, I don't think so.

By GLENN RUPPEL, JIM AVILA (@JimAvilaABC) AND MARK GREENBLATT (@greenblattmark)

Nov. 17, 2012

You're accustomed to airline food that's bland, tepid or otherwise unappetizing. You're probably not accustomed to hearing that it was prepared or stored in areas crawling with mice, ants and roaches.

But that's what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) saw when it inspected airlines and their outside caterers.

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, "20/20" obtained lists of recent health violation records from the FDA, the agency in charge of inspecting airlines and their outside food caterers.

Over almost four years, the industry counted more than 1,500 health violations. "Significant" problems were found at a much higher rate than in other industries the FDA inspects, the agency said.

"You put that all together, and you have a time bomb," said Roy Costa, a food-industry consultant and former health inspector.

The FDA reported evidence of mice on Delta Airlines planes. In a statement, the airline said, "This clearly was an isolated incident and we cooperated with the FDA immediately to resolve it immediately after it was brought to our attention. The health and safety of Delta's customers and employees are Delta's top priority. We take this issue very seriously and have an established routine servicing program to inspect our aircraft."

About other conditions found by the FDA, the airline said in a statement, "These FDA inspections, some dating to 2009, are related to inspections of lavatory service trucks and aircraft potable water. We began addressing the action items the FDA set forth immediately. Delta's deepest core value is the safety of our customers."

Then there's LSG Sky Chefs, the industry giant that provides food to many airlines. Records showed company food facilities infested with ants crawling over discarded food, flies both dead and alive -- and roaches all over.

If insects are in the room, they're probably in the food, Costa said.

"You can't have insect remains and feces of rodents and dead flies [in these areas]," Costa said.

In a statement, LSG Sky Chefs said, "Our facilities are inspected by several internal and external agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As with any FDA inspection, documented observations are indicated on a 483 form and if observations are cited at our facilities we immediately review and correct. In two cases, the FDA 483 forms led to the issuing of warning letters that were immediately addressed by us to ensure complete FDA compliance.

Food and Drug Administration

Cockroaches at an airline food facility,... View Full Size

Food and Drug AdministrationCockroaches at an airline food facility, captured on camera by FDA inspectors. The image was made available to ABC News via a Freedom of Information Act request. The Vile High Club Watch Video

Good Vs. Poor Hand Washing: A Graphic Demo Watch Video

Airline Food Disasters Watch Video

"In the U.S., we cater tens of millions of meals per year that are subject to far more oversight than those served in other industries. Food safety and quality are our number one priority and our multi-layered quality control system has helped ensure the quality and safety of the meals we provide. These rigorous FDA inspections are one of many steps that assure the safety and quality of the meals we serve. All of our kitchens are FDA registered and are in compliance with the regulations."

At company after company, the FDA saw things like dirty cooking areas, old or moldy products and employees not washing their hands.

Gate Gourmet serves many top airlines. At their facilities inspectors found roaches, gnats ("too numerous to count"), unrefrigerated food, utensils on dirty racks, and more. In its defense, Gate Gourmet told "20/20" in a statement, "None of the FDA's observations ... indicated a threat to the health of the traveling public."

Costa disagreed: "Those things are direct threats to public health."

Read the full statement HERE

Gate Gourmet, LSG Sky Chefs and other caterers and major airlines told "20/20" they take food sanitation very seriously, and fix any problems immediately. They also said they serve millions of meals without incident.

Read the full statements HERE

That may be irrelevant to those who claim they were the exception.

In late 2011 the family of a Miami man sued American Airlines, claiming he died from eating bacteria-contaminated food on a flight. American told "20/20" his illness was unrelated to its food.

In a statement, American said, "Mr. Cortes, a 73-year-old man traveling with his wife from Barcelona to JFK with an ultimate destination of Miami, required medical assistance approximately 35 minutes into his flight from JFK to Miami. We have thoroughly investigated Mrs. Cortes' clams and while we are saddened by the death of her husband, we are confident the facts will prove that his death was in no way related to food he consumed onboard our aircraft."

Read the full statement HERE

And those who fly business or first class and think the curtain protects them from the risk of contaminated food should think again, Costa warned.

"Fancy food isn't safe food. The bacteria really don't care."

Watch the full story on "20/20: The Real Dish" TONIGHT at 10 ET

Gate Gourmet's full statement to ABC News:

"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the last three years of FDA inspection reports at certain Gate Gourmet facilities.

"It's important to consider these reports in context. Form 483 is neither a 'warning letter' nor a direct threat of closure. It includes inspectional observations that do not represent a final agency determination of non-compliance.

"None of the FDA's observations at Gate Gourmet from 2009-2012 indicated a threat to the health of the traveling public, nor did they result in a warning letter.

"Gate Gourmet's goal is to be 100 percent compliant with all health and safety regulations, 100 percent of the time. We take our responsibility very seriously. Where any issues arise, we address those issues quickly -- in many instances, during the course of an audit or before the auditing agent even leaves our facility.

"Our work with the FDA is important, especially in an operation of our magnitude. FDA inspections are a key element in the multi-layered processes in place at Gate Gourmet and within the airline catering industry. Along with FDA oversight, this system of controls also includes other government agency audits, customer inspections, continuous improvement initiatives, and our own quality assurance programs (through which we have outsourced food safety inspections to a third party to ensure objectivity).

"We employ thousands of individuals and have rigorous controls in place under which we globally serve more than 250 million safe and high-quality meals annually, to more than 250 airlines. Food safety and security are our highest priorities, and our record is among the best in the food service industry.

"We remain confident in our quality control measures and are continually improving our processes and technology.

"You can find more information about Gate Gourmet's food safety protocols on our website by clicking here, and we encourage you to contact the International Flight Services Association for industry information, including the World Food Safety Guidelines the organization oversees."

American Airlines' full statement to ABC News:

"With approximately 30 million meals served to American's customers every year, we take the issue of food safety very seriously. Most importantly, we support the work of the FDA and consider them a partner in holding our industry accountable to stringent food safety regulations. In fact, we encourage frequent and comprehensive FDA evaluations of our partner catering kitchens and believe their inspections, in conjunction with our own quality control efforts, have been highly successful in ensuring food safety for our customers and crew.

"In addition to the work of the FDA, we work closely with our catering partners and have an industry-leading Performance Measurement Program which we mandate by contract with our caterers. American was the first U.S.-based airline to implement a comprehensive approach to overall quality management and our catering partners understand that failure to meet our stringent performance requirements can have significant contractual implications. Like the FDA, we frequently conduct unannounced kitchen evaluations to monitor all aspects of service to American, with a particular focus on food safety and hygiene. We follow well-established and stringent FDA guidelines and are continuously monitoring and updating best practices related to food safety and hygiene to ensure we are constantly improving the program."

Airlines for America's full statement to ABC News:

"Safety is the highest priority of the airline industry. Our members safely transport two million people every day and safely serve millions more meals and beverages each year. Airlines have programs in place that provide multiple layers of protection to ensure that they and their catering providers are meeting or exceeding world food safety guidelines, and they work closely with government agencies to rigorously inspect catering and airport facilities, and work to promptly address any issues and ensure complete compliance."

International Flight Services Association's full statement to ABC News:

"The traveling public can be assured that meals served on airlines are safe for consumption. Members of the International Flight Services Association (IFSA), global professional association for airline and railway personnel, inflight and rail caterers and suppliers to the industry, place the security and safety of the traveling public as their absolute highest priority. The industry has a solid food safety record, which is evidenced by the hundreds of millions of meals that are safely prepared and served on travel routes each year. Airline catering facilities are highly regulated and frequently audited by local, regional and federal agencies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Airlines and caterers also have additional internal food safety protocols in place, that meet or exceed best practices in IFSA's World Food Safety Guidelines for Airline Catering, accepted by international airlines as the basic reference document for airline catering food safety."

Flying Food Group's full statement to ABC News:

"Flying Food Group (FFG) is 100 percent committed to a close collaboration with regulators and auditors to assure the safety and quality of nearly 300,000 meals we provide daily to customers.

"We welcome the opportunity to do what it takes to respond positively to their findings. They help us to continuously improve: we always want to do better, even when we are performing very well.

"The job of regulators is to identify any problems, and our job is to take their findings very seriously and respond proactively.

"We are celebrating our third decade of providing quality meals and snacks for our customers. Over the years, as regulations have evolved, we continue to partner with regulators to implement new guidelines.

"FFG Food Safety Oversight:

"--Work closely with all regulators to comply with regulatory findings

--Undergo continual customer and third-party audits

--Conduct regular internal food safety and quality audits

--Engage with international food safety organizations

--Response directed by global food safety expert Dr. Paul Hall

"International Food Safety Affiliations:

"FFG is the only airline catering company member of Institute of Food Safety and Health (IFSH). This consortium of FDA, industry, and Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) addresses food safety/nutrition issues.

"FFG is the only airline catering company that is a Gold Level Sustaining Member of the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). IAFP is the world's pre-eminent scientific organization dedicated to addressing the safety of our global food supply. Other IAFP Gold Sustaining members include Coca Cola, Heinz and Kraft Foods.

"Global Food Safety Expert Heads FFG FS & Q team:

"FFG VP of Food Safety & Quality Dr. Paul Hall heads FFG's 40-member Food Safety & Quality team, overseeing food safety and quality practices and guiding FFG towards internationally-recognized food safety certification. He joined FFG in August 2011. His credentials include:

1. Past President, International Association for Food Protection (IAFP)

2. Lifetime Achievement Award from IFSH (formerly National Center for Food Safety) for his food safety leadership and lifetime contributions across industry/ government/ academia

3. Over 30 years food safety & quality experience-top positions in food safety and/or microbiology with Kraft Foods Global, Con Agra Foods, Ralston Purina and Anheuser Bush Companies

4. Past President, American Society for Microbiology-Missouri Branch

"Specific Queries:

1. FDA Form 483

"FFG is subject to ongoing federal, state and local health inspections, including inspections led by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At the conclusion of a site inspection, an FDA inspector commonly presents a FDA Form 483 – List of Inspectional Observations. FFG takes every FDA observation on a Form 483 very seriously.

"FFG responds in a timely manner to every FDA observation

"FFG takes each FDA Form 483 observation very seriously

2. Single FDA Warning Letter

"You have asked about the single FDA Warning Letter related to issues at our Newark, NJ facility. It involved a disparity over interpretation of FDA's own Guidance Document for safe handling of seafood, plus some specific infrastructure issues.

Outcome:

"All immediate actions related to Newark facility's infrastructure issues have been completed.

"Interpretation points regarding FDA Seafood Guidance Document are resolved.

"Public health was never threatened by this difference in interpretation of the FDA Guidance Document.

3. Specific Form 483 Health Observations

"--All FDA observations have been addressed in a timely manner

--All immediate actions have been implemented

--Further planned actions are clearly communicated to FDA and are in progress with defined timelines for completion

No unresolved issues compromise product safety.

"We take every finding seriously and address each one in a timely manner. As regulations evolve, observations in FDA Form 483's serve as a valuable tool for continual improvement of food safety and quality at FFG.

"Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. Food Safety is a Number One priority at Flying Food Group."

Southwest Airlines' full statement to ABC News:

"At Southwest Airlines, the Safety of our Customers and Employees is our highest priority. We work every day to provide a safe environment and an enjoyable experience. As part of this quest, Southwest Airlines works closely with all regulatory agencies and officials to ensure the highest quality of service and highest level of Safety. As with all airlines, our operation is regularly inspected by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Interstate Travel Sanitation Inspectors.

"If concerns are raised during an inspection, we take immediate measures to react to the specific feedback. In addition, we continue to implement multiple layers of protection to ensure complete compliance to all regulations."

Today Show's Rehash of the Auditor Bash

Roy Costa — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:49:45 -0500

Despite that all of this has been said before, Bloomberg and the Today Show still think there is something to say about third party food safety audits, but they say nothing new. Of course, there are going to be outbreaks in facilities that have third party inspections. Just like there are outbreaks in facilities regulated by USDA, FDA and every county health department across the US. Why is that a surprise? Third party auditors are in almost every facility that should be inspected by FDA. Where is FDA? Do the agency and its inability to police the food industry share the blame for the situation? What about the thousands of facilities that do not have outbreaks THAT ARE AUDITED? It’s impossible to measure prevention…let’s see…show me the data on how many outbreaks didn’t happen? Hmmm.

All of these stories expose the weakness in the third party system, which I admit there is. As an auditor, I do not carry a badge, cannot stop production, and cannot close an establishment. I can even be constrained from taking pictures, samples and can be denied access to records and documents at the discretion of management. I can only evaluate the questions on the audit template and only those that are in the so called scope of the audit.

Doug Powell asks for the data, and well he should, but he is not likely to get it since this data is proprietary. Audit companies are not going to publish the scores of auditees, and why should they? These audits are simply tools for the buying community to make purchasing decisions, not public health protection documents. If there is weakness in the system, it is that retailers will buy from anyone, and simply hide behind a smoke screen of due diligence, putting the burden of food safety on the supplier, while the buyers themselves are free to scour the markets for the best price and ignore food safety.

And forget the scores, there are so many questions that the points do not always indicate the real level of risk, but buyers and retailers do not read the reports, they simply go by scores. In my opinion, the buyers need to be educated because few if any of them really know how to interpret the findings from third party audits.

Left to its own devices, due to the inability of our public health agencies to afford us food protection, the food industry has created a system it can live with. Such is the case with third party audits. No retailer is going to make the system so strict that it constricts the supply, or God forbid causes a shortage and prices rise. And there is the profit motive, as this article brings out, and not just at AIB. Remember, FMI the billion dollar voice of the food industry owns the most recognized GFSI scheme called SQF, and they are not alone- all auditing companies work for the industry and adjust themselves to the prevailing powers that be- to make money, that is business and just what you would expect from an industry driven concept. It is so naïve to think any other way.

If you want independent auditors who are not beholden to someone, then we better fund a righteous FDA and keep the political honchos in Washington away from the inspectors. It can’t be done either-so there.

So now what?

More outbreaks, more tragic deaths and more of the blame game; this nightmare is not going away just because the Today Show runs a story. The problem is that the microbes have become firmly entrenched in our environment and attack our food supply at will, and we seem to lack the ability to detect them or eradicate them. Our best hope is a huge infusion of scientists, science and technology into the food industry, but we are a generation away from seeing the beneficial effects, even if we start now.

So on we go with incompetent people running our food safety programs, basic hourly workers with no knowledge of chemistry or microbiology in charge of food safety in too many plants, coopted auditors, and poor little old FDA limping to the scene after some tragic event to tell us what went wrong. Pathetic.

Read on and try not to barf.

Show us the data, forget the faith; food sickens millions as company-paid checks find it safe

10.Oct.12

barfblog

Doug Powell

http://barfblog.com/show-us-the-data-forget-the-faith-food-sickens-millions-as-company-paid-checks-find-it-safe/

William Beach loved cantaloupe -- so much so that starting in June last year he ate it almost every day. By August, the 87-year-old retired tractor mechanic from Mustang, Oklahoma, was complaining to his family that he was fatigued, with pain everywhere in his body.

On Sept. 1, 2011, Beach got out of bed in the middle of the night, put his clothes on and walked into the living room. His wife, Monette, found him collapsed on the floor in the morning. At the hospital, blood poured from his mouth and nose, splattering sheets, bed rails and physicians.

He died that night, a victim of Listeria monocytogenes. Beach was one of 33 people killed by listeria that was later traced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state officials to contaminated cantaloupes from one Colorado farm. It was the deadliest outbreak of foodborne disease in the U.S. in almost 100 years.

“He died in terror and pain,” says his daughter Debbie Frederick.

That’s how Stephanie Armour, John Lippert and Michael Smith begin their food safety and aduits and inspections opus for Bloomberg. The Today Show may run a version this morning, because I taped a bit for it at Brisbane’s Channel 7 studios last week.

About seven weeks after Beach started eating cantaloupes, a private, for-profit inspection company awarded a top safety rating to Jensen Farms, the Granada, Colorado, grower of his toxic fruit. The approval meant retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Wegmans Food Markets Inc. could sell Jensen melons.

The FDA, a federal agency nominally responsible for overseeing most food safety, had never inspected Jensen.

During the past two decades, the food industry has taken over much of the FDA’s role in ensuring that what Americans eat is safe. The agency can’t come close to vetting its jurisdiction of $1.2 trillion in annual food sales.

In 2011, the FDA inspected 6 percent of domestic food producers and just 0.4 percent of importers. The FDA has had no rules for how often food producers must be inspected.

The food industry hires for-profit inspection companies -- known as third-party auditors -- who aren’t required by law to meet any federal standards and have no government supervision. Some of these monitors choose to follow guidelines from trade groups that include ConAgra Foods Inc. (CAG), Kraft Foods Inc. and Wal-Mart.

The private inspectors that companies select often check only those areas their clients ask them to review. That means they can miss deadly pathogens lurking in places they never examined.

What for-hire auditors do is cloaked in secrecy; they don’t have to make their findings public. Bloomberg Markets obtained four audit reports and three audit certificates through court cases, congressional investigations and company websites.

Six audits gave sterling marks to the cantaloupe farm, an egg producer, a peanut processor and a ground-turkey plant -- either before or right after they supplied toxic food.

Collectively, these growers and processors were responsible for tainted food that sickened 2,936 people and killed 43 in 50 states.

“The outbreaks we’re seeing are endless,” says Doug Powell, lead author of an Aug. 30, 2012, study on third-party monitors called “Audits and Inspections Are Never Enough.” Powell, a professor of food safety at Kansas State University, says Americans are at risk whenever they go to a supermarket.

“You need to be in a culture that takes food safety seriously,” Powell says. “Right now, what we have is hidden. The third-party auditor stickers and certificates are meaningless.”

In some cases, for-hire auditors have financial ties to executives at companies they’re reviewing. AIB International Inc., a Manhattan, Kansas, auditor that awarded top marks to producers that sold toxic food, has had board members who are top managers at companies that are clients.

Executives of Flowers Foods Inc. (FLO), which makes Tastykake, and Grupo Bimbo SAB in Mexico City, which makes Entenmann’s pastries, Sara Lee baked goods and Wonder Bread, serve or have served on AIB’s board.

“There’s a fundamental conflict,” says David Kessler, a lawyer and physician who was FDA commissioner from 1990 to 1997. “We all know about third-party audit conflicts. We’ve seen it play out in the financial world. You can’t be tied to your auditors. There has to be independence.”

As flawed as the inspection system is in the U.S., it’s more problematic with imported food, especially coming from countries with lower sanitary standards, says Michael Doyle, director of the University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety. In some emerging markets, farms growing food for export to the U.S. aren’t inspected at all.

The U.S. will import half of its food by 2030, up from 20 percent today, Doyle says. Bloomberg Markets visited growers in China, Mexico and Vietnam and found unsanitary conditions for produce, fruit and fish exported to the U.S.

Auditors evaluate their clients using standards selected by the companies that pay them, says Mansour Samadpour, owner of IEH Laboratories & Consulting Group in Lake Forest Park, Washington, which does testing for the FDA. The auditors sometimes follow a checklist that the company they’re inspecting has helped write.

“If you have a program for adding rat poison to a food, the auditor will ask, ‘Did you add as much as you intended?”’ Samadpour says. “Most won’t ask, ‘Why the hell are we adding poison?”’

Not only has the government outsourced auditing to the food industry; the auditors themselves often outsource their vetting to independent contractors -- people over whom they don’t have direct management control.

While Primus Labs declined to comment directly for this story, it did supply a response from its law firm, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP in New York. Auditors, the statement says, serve at the pleasure of their clients and cannot go beyond what they are asked to do.

“Third-party auditing will continue to be as effective as those requiring the audits (buyers/suppliers) and the audited suppliers make them,” the law firm writes. James Markus, a lawyer representing Jensen, didn’t return calls seeking comment.

From the outset, the FDA lacked the resources to inspect all of the country’s food producers.

The food industry moved to fill that vacuum with private auditors in the 1990s. Danone SA (BN), Kraft, Wal-Mart and other companies created the Paris-based Global Food Safety Initiative in 2000 to write guidelines for third-party auditors.

The program, whose vice chairman is Frank Yiannas, Wal- Mart’s vice president for safety, requires companies to be audited once a year. It doesn’t mandate testing for pathogens. In 60 manufacturing plants, Wal-Mart suppliers reported a third fewer recalls in the two years after adopting GFSI standards, Yiannas says.

In some cases, companies use their own auditors to check suppliers. In 2002 and 2006, Nestle USA, a subsidiary of Vevey, Switzerland-based Nestle SA (NESN), refused to use Peanut Corp. of America as a supplier. Nestle inspectors found rodent carcasses and pigeons in Peanut Corp.’s Plainview, Texas, plant.

Nestle’s rejection didn’t stop Lynchburg, Virginia-based Peanut Corp. from doing business with other customers or seeking approval from third-party auditors. In 2008, AIB International auditor Eugene Hatfield gave Peanut Corp.’s Blakely, Georgia, plant a “superior” rating.

And there’s a whole lot more. Our take on all this is below:

Food Control

D.A. Powell, S. Erdozain, C. Dodd, R. Costa, K. Morley, B.J. Chapman

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713512004409?v=s5

Abstract

Internal and external food safety audits are conducted to assess the safety and quality of food including on-farm production, manufacturing practices, sanitation, and hygiene. Some auditors are direct stakeholders that are employed by food establishments to conduct internal audits, while other auditors may represent the interests of a second-party purchaser or a third-party auditing agency. Some buyers conduct their own audits or additional testing, while some buyers trust the results of third-party audits or inspections. Third-party auditors, however, use various food safety audit standards and most do not have a vested interest in the products being sold. Audits are conducted under a proprietary standard, while food safety inspections are generally conducted within a legal framework. There have been many foodborne illness outbreaks linked to food processors that have passed third-party audits and inspections, raising questions about the utility of both. Supporters argue third-party audits are a way to ensure food safety in an era of dwindling economic resources. Critics contend that while external audits and inspections can be a valuable tool to help ensure safe food, such activities represent only a snapshot in time. This paper identifies limitations of food safety inspections and audits and provides recommendations for strengthening the system, based on developing a strong food safety culture, including risk-based verification steps, throughout the food safety system.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/food-sickens-millions-as-industry-paid-inspectors-find-it-safe.html

http://barfblog.com/losing-my-religion-faith-based-safety-has-to-go-audits-and-inspections-are-never-enough/

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/toxic-food-can-the-fda-keep-u-s-consumers-safe-yk~bX~hPRSupw33re4cGvQ.html

Who Was the Peanut Auditor?

Roy Costa — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:27:24 -0500

Whilst I value the commentary of my friend and colleague, Doug Powell and agree almost 99% with his theory and thought, I have to question this aside at the conclusion of the story below.

Do we ask "who was the inspector" every time we have an outbreak in a regulated restaurant or meat plant? How is that relevant?

The auditor or inspector is not in charge of food safety. As a profession, we are there to evaluate either conformance with a prescribed set of rules written by a buyer (in the case of an auditor) or compliance with laws written and enacted by government.

The findings are useful for improving an operation, and the findings may point to risks inherent in a process or product or facility, but the inspection or audit process may not necessarily uncover every defect, hidden hazards or those of such a nature that they cannot be readily discerned through visual observation or records review. In any case, breakthrough events do not invalidate either inspections or audits, nor do they undermine their value or negate the need to continue such.

On the other hand, we have seen obvious defects and unsafe conditions left unchecked by an auditor or an inspector, and then a subsequent outbreak occur. We have to ask why that happens, and I believe that reporting and observational biases are a challenge for both inspectors and auditors. The biggest prejudices that such an expert has are lack of knowledge, time constraints, failure to see the entire operation, pressure from the operator, invalid audit or inspection protocol, faulty inspection report or method used to evaluate risks, politics, business concerns and self interest.

These flaws potentially exists in every inspection or audit process and the extent of which they manifest will invalidate the outcome.

Therefore, it is important to ask more than just who an inspector was; it is much more important to look at the whole auditing and inspection process. I believe these failures are not so much the result of "who was the auditor" but how well the audit process was able to uncover issues, and of course how well the operation cooperated with the auditor and responded to concerns.

29 sick with Salmonella linked to Trader Joe’s peanut butter; why is Penn. going public and others aren’t?
21.sep.12
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://barfblog.com/29-sick-with-salmonella-linked-to-trader-joes-peanut-butter-why-is-penn-going-public-and-others-arent/
Now would be the usual time for some consumer education group to issue yet another jackass advisory, this time about how consumers should cook their peanut butter, or choose it with care, or something else they have no control over.
It is food safety education month, don’t ya know.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health today advised consumers that Trader Joe's Valencia Creamy Salted Peanut Butter made with sea salt may be related to a multi-state outbreak of salmonella.
The department is working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health officials in several states to investigate the outbreak. Nationally, there have been 29 cases of illness with two cases reported in Pennsylvania.
Trader Joe's has voluntarily removed the product for sale from its stores; however, consumers who have the product in their homes should discard it and should also be aware that this product is sold online through other retail outlets.
Additionally, the department advises anyone who recently consumed Trader Joe's Valencia Creamy Salted Peanut Butter made with sea salt and then became ill to consult their healthcare provider, local health department, or call the Department of Health at 1-877-PA-HEALTH.
Where did this peanut butter originate? Does hipster fave Trader Joe’s audit their suppliers? Who was the auditor?
Nothing yet on the Trader Joe’s website.
http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-department-health-warns-consumers-discard-trader-joes-220200445.html
http://www.traderjoes.com

Retailer Double Talk on Produce Safety

Roy Costa — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:04:45 -0500

One of the hallmarks of protecting the fresh produce supply is a concept known as “buyer-driven” food safety controls. In the absence of regulations, the produce industry has been working under private standards drafted by the major buyers of produce, meaning the large retailers-the major supermarket chains. While the need to satisfy the retailer that foods supplied to them are safe, retailers themselves have been less than effective in ensuring that the people they commission to buy for them, their own “buyers”, only deal with operations with acceptable food safety systems.

This means that many, if not most retailers, will buy produce from firms that have not been verified by competent third parties or by the retailers themselves (second party verification), when it is opportune for them to do so. For a revealing piece on this issue see The Perishable Pundit:

http://www.perishablepundit.com/index.php?article=2667

The sad truth is that when buyers can get produce from a vendor at a cheaper price, the requirements for safety take second place.

Even worse, buyers utilize the unapproved firm as a lever to get the operator with a food safety system, and subsequently higher production costs, to lower their price.

Even small operations may invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in satisfying the strict rules of the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). Often, firms must hire food safety personnel due to the overwhelming amount of self-inspection and paperwork involved. Laboratories and auditors must be paid for. Many times there are requirements for structural improvements and maintenance, chemicals to clean and treat water and many other similar costs to be borne day in and day out by suppliers. Thanks to the attitude of the major retailers, these suppliers cannot typically charge more for their products, and must absorb the costs as best they can while trying to stay competitive.

It is unfair to say the least that buyers for the major retailers would use the lower priced unapproved supplier as leverage to keep down their costs. Instead of rewarding suppliers for diligent efforts that not only protect the retailer, but public health in general, they are causing animosity; many conscientious produce operators are indignant at the current double standard, but the fear of losing customers precludes most of them from expressing their exasperation.

http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/155900/12/08/23/less-rhetoric-more-data-market-cantaloupe-safety-retail-so-consumers-can-choose

"Food safety culture" is a much used phrase and one preached to the supply chain by many of the world’s largest retailers. Retailers should be reminded that food safety culture begins at home, and such talk becomes a mockery in the eyes of the producer when retailers say one thing and do another.

Not all produce firms have had an opportunity to be qualified by third party accreditation under any private scheme, but the population of certified firms is growing, Part of the reason for the shortfall is that the auditing firms performing such audits are themselves overwhelmed and lack the necessary manpower.

In order to maintain pressure on the supply chain, the buyers for the major retailers have set deadlines for compliance, but then have to announce that another grace period or extension has been granted. Some relatively large producers of fruits and vegetables have just decided that the retail communities demands for conformance with third party food safety standards is a bluff and carry on business as usual; and they find most retailers are willing to buy their products anyway, on the basis of price and quality.

Lawsuits involving the produce industry cost retailers many millions, however, too many are seemingly willing to take a chance as long as the short term economic benefit is there.

I am sure the food safety experts at the nation’s leading retailers cringe when their buyers go outside the approved supplier list, yet the corporate decision makers do not always value a food safety department’s input.

Again, this is not “food safety culture”, when a firm puts short term profits over safety and public health; this is the antithesis-corporate greed.

Such business practices are undermining food safety efforts and causing many a bitter attitude among firms who have invested millions over the years to satisfy the demands of retailers, only to have their competitors flaunt such food safety efforts and prosper.

FDA Finds Insanitary Conditions-Again

Roy Costa — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 10:36:51 -0500

FDA once again on the basis of detecting a Listeria contaminated product, finds insanitary conditions at a producer, this time at Henrys Farm Inc. of Woodford, VA. It would be much better for everyone if FDA had found these conditions beforehand. These repeated exercises by FDA should be a warning to the produce industry, that sanitary conditions in produce operations need improving across the board. It also points to the tremendous job FDA will have in cleaning up the produce industry, if and when they are able. Until then, it appears reacting is the best they can do.

Here are the findings as published by Food Safety News:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/fda-sends-warning-letter-to-sprout-grower-citing-unsanitary-facilities/

- Rodent pellets in bags of mung beans, along with gnawing on 25 kg paper bags of soybeans located in the refrigerated seed storage section. and in a shed 200 feet West of this storage area. FDA reported "a foul odor consistent with rodent infestations associated with the shed."

- Gaps under the door to the refrigerated seed storage area and holes in the ceiling of a shed containing soybeans

- A hand-washing sink draining used water onto the floor

- An accumulation of debris in the exit bin of the wash chute leading to the sprout air dryers and packaging machine and on the underside of a conveyor belt that transports soy beans.

- Loose metal burns on the metal mesh conveyor belt in the sprout processing area measuring about a quarter of an inch around.

FDA also charges Henrys with misbranding its product, saying the company's sprouts failed to bear a label including the name and place of business of the manufacturer or the net quantity.

Who are the commercial buyers and distributers of these products? Do they have a clue what they are buying and selling? Food safety at this level of the produce supply has a long, long way to go.

Fear Mongering or Facts, Plaintiff Attorneys and Social Media in Food Safety

Roy Costa — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:32:58 -0500

Fear Mongering or Facts, Plaintiff Attorneys and Social Media in Food Safety

The tort system has become the fulcrum for food safety in the absence of a credible public health response to foodborne illness. Nobody goes to jail in the US for even the worst food safety breaches, even those that result from gross negligence, but they do get sued, big time. FDA especially, has lacked the power to levy any meaningful penalties against offending firms, even ones that have released contaminated foods knowingly into commerce. The Parnells and De Costers rest in their immunity from prosecution after they poison thousands and killed innocent consumers with their tainted products, but they cannot escape the long arm of the plaintiff attorney. The complacency that has developed due to the liaise-fare attitude of government, turned to fear of lawsuits, has now hardened into an attack on plaintiff lawyers, the last recourse for injured parties.

With that as a backdrop, the story below reeks of a reactionary mentality. The suggestions that social media be used to spin food safety information and deter consumers from getting the facts they need during an outbreak will not get very far. The public is not so easily fooled.

I believe that firms that practice food safety and are committed to the principles of public health protection should tout their message.

But to play games with the access to factual information especially during an outbreak just reveals the shocking and desperate state the food industry is in.

Instead of manipulating social media, the food industry should be redoubling their efforts to stop the foodborne epidemic in this country and come clean with the American public.

US: Four ways plaintiffs’ lawyers leverage Google to stir food-safety fears
11.sep.12
Fast Company
Richard S. Levick
http://www.fastcompany.com/3001180/four-ways-plaintiffs%E2%80%99-lawyers-leverage-google-stir-food-safety-fears
Despite the fact that America’s food safety infrastructure is the most efficient and effective in the world, the International Food Information Council Foundation’s 2012 Food and Health Survey found that only 20 percent of Americans are “very confident” in food supply safety. At the same time, one in six U.S. consumers has stopped buying a particular food or beverage brand because of safety concerns in the last twelve months.
Given the rash of high-profile food recalls we’ve seen since 2007, the figure is understandable, even if it isn’t backed up by hard facts. Spinach, tomatoes, peanuts, lettuce, ground beef, and a host of other kitchen table staples all experienced significant incidence of contamination in the last five years. The resulting consumer anxiety got so bad in 2009 that Americans actually put their food safety fears on par with worries about the War on Terror.
That’s a compelling statistic--and it ought to make farmers and food manufacturers wonder if there’s something else that is contributing to Americans’ fear of food. Even at the 2010 height of salmonella, listeria, and E. coli outbreaks, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that only one in every 125 million meals served in the U.S. had the potential to make a consumer fatally ill. Science supports a conclusion that the food we eat every day is, indeed, safe. So why don’t Americans feel that way?
The answer lies in the fact that statistics can’t compete with emotion when it comes to assuaging anxiety. Numbers don’t move people the way that human drama does--and there are no more dramatic events in the food industry than when a person dies after eating something she believed was safe.
This facet of human nature explains a large part of the equation; but not all of it. There is another factor at play, and it manifests itself in the efforts of those with skin in the food-fear game. Food industry adversaries--the plaintiffs’ bar chief among them--understand how emotion impacts the marketplace. Even more troubling for the food industry, they understand how to manipulate digital and social media strategies to ensure their emotional appeals ring out in the marketplace.
By way of example, when we look at the circumstances surrounding the recent salmonella outbreak that killed two people, sickened 150, and originated at an Indiana cantaloupe farm, we see just how effective their efforts are at controlling the flow of information on food safety issues. In other words, we see just how good they’ve gotten at controlling search results on Google, the venue more people turn to for information than any other (digital or otherwise).
1.Plaintiffs control the keywords. As of this writing, a Google search for the term “cantaloupe outbreak” lists a law firm as the top sponsored link. A search for “cantaloupe lawsuit” returns six plaintiffs’ firm sites on the first page. Industry messaging on safety issues is nowhere to be found on the first page of either of these searches. Bottom line--on virtually every food outbreak issue, the plaintiff’s bar is masterfully controlling the dialogue on Google.
2.Plaintiffs dominate the blogosphere. When users click those links mentioned above, they are most often directed to blog posts that outline how the industry failed to keep cantaloupe consumers safe. While the posts provide plaintiffs with an important messaging venue, the blogs themselves ensure high search rank for the posts because they are sources of the frequently-updated content that attracts the Google spiders.
3.Plaintiffs use online video. A Google Video search for “cantaloupe listeria lawsuit” features two plaintiff-produced videos in the top three results. Just like the blog posts mentioned above, these videos don’t paint the industry as a responsible steward of public health. And as Google increasingly emphasizes the spoken word over the written one, these videos further optimize plaintiffs’ messaging.
4.Plaintiffs geo-target. As mentioned above, a Google search for “cantaloupe lawsuit” returns one plaintiff-maintained link. At the same time, a Google search for “cantaloupe lawsuit Kentucky” (one of the hardest hit states during the outbreak) returns two sponsored links. That tells us that at least one firm is targeting its efforts to the geographic areas where its messages will resonate most.
What all of this means is that the plaintiffs’ bar is operating in a virtual information vacuum when contamination strikes the food and beverage industry. “Within the legal community, they are simply outworking and outsmarting the other side when it comes to online communication,” says Bob Hibbert, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius who has worked on number of high-profile food safety issues. “It’s clearly in the best interest of the food industry, and of the people who represent it, to mount a more effective response to this challenge.”
Fortunately, leveling the playing field doesn’t require any great strategic leap. Food manufacturers need to understand that the same tactics driving high levels of consumer anxiety can be employed to diminish it as well. Specifically, food companies should:
1.Own their risk terms and keywords. Plaintiffs’ keyword dominance exists because food manufacturers don’t own the risk terms that their consumers use to find information on the latest safety crises. While they likely optimize their Web properties for terms related to their products (“tomato,” “spinach,” ”cantaloupe,” etc.), they don’t do the same for terms such as “foodborne illness,” “recall,” “lawsuit,” or “outbreak”--and that enables the plaintiffs’ bar and other adversarial voices to dominate the conversation. At the moment an instance of contamination is discovered, food companies need to engage in Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and Marketing (SEM) campaigns that rank their response messages at the top of the list when their risk terms are queried. Even better, food manufacturers that do the same in peacetime not only eliminate the need to scramble when trouble arises; they create a compelling safety narrative that plaintiffs will have to overcome.
2.Address the blogosphere. Plaintiffs’ attorneys maintain blogs as a means to provide a steady stream of optimized content that keeps their messages front and center on search engines. They know that if they are active all the time, the Google spiders will elevate their sites when a food recall hits and it comes time to troll for class action clients. By blogging about all the ways they work to diminish the possibility of contamination, food manufacturers can also create the salient, frequently-updated content that ranks on Google when consumers seek information on food safety.
3.Engage via video. Food manufacturers that reach out to consumers with engaging video content not only provide themselves a leg up on the SEO front; they establish the emotional connections needed to bridge the safety perception gap. Articulating food safety statistics such as those cited above merely tells people their food is safe. Video shows them why they should consume with confidence. With video content that highlights safety procedures and the men and women charged with carrying them out, food manufacturers can powerfully articulate a commitment to safety that sticks with their audience. By going a step further with how-to videos that outline healthy food preparation steps, they can themselves take on the identity of true consumer advocates.
4.Be where the fear is. When an outbreak does occur, the companies at the center the problem--as well as those whose brands may be tarnished by mere association--need to target their messages to affected populations. Not only does geo-targeting streamline their optimization efforts by focusing resources where they are need most; it enables companies to directly reach the very consumers most likely to change their buying and eating habits as a result of a contamination incident.
Google is the portal by which consumers gain or lose confidence in products and services. As such, it is too important a venue for food manufacturers to cede to their adversaries. At a time when more than half of Americans are concerned about the foodborne illness, the industry has a compelling safety story to share. With strategies that enhance Web optimization, they can help ensure that a captive audience is there to hear it.
Follow Richard Levick on Twitter and circle him on Google+, where he comments daily on the issues impacting corporate brands.
Richard Levick, Esq., President and CEO of LEVICK, represents countries and companies in the highest-stakes global communications matters--from the Wall Street crisis and the Gulf oil spill to Guantanamo Bay and the Catholic Church. Mr. Levick was honored for the past three years on NACD Directorship’s list of “The 100 Most Influential People in the Boardroom,” and has been named to multiple professional Halls of Fame for lifetime achievement. He is the co-author of three books, including The Communicators: Leadership in the Age of Crisis, and is a regular commentator on television, in print, and on the web.

12 Steps for a Safe Produce Supply

Roy Costa — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:36:47 -0500

Bill Marler, arguably the leading legal mind in food safety today, is not pulling any punches when he points out the deficiencies at Jensen Farms.

www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/should-brothers-ryan-and-eric-jensen-face-criminal-charges-will-producers-of-listeria-tainted-cantal/

The shocking truth is that the old ways of doing things in the produce industry must quickly come to an end. We cannot continue to hide from the truth. We should therefore be very worried about the future of the fresh produce industry, and do whatever we can to save it.

The following is my take on what it will require to satisfy any future due diligence defense, in the event that the unthinkable happens, again.

1. Equipment design

All equipment that touches a produce item at any step of production must be stainless steel and NSF or UL approved, or equivalent, and otherwise meet the requirements for food contact surfaces as outlined by the USFDA Food Code. Any part of any piece of equipment that touches produce, whether the produce surface is part of the food, or is inedible, must be certified as safely designed. Existing equipment must meet the same requirements or must be dismantled and removed. This also applies to retail operations where produce is displayed handled and/or sold to the consumer.

Non-food contact surface of equipment shall pass equivalent qualifications based on a risk assessment.

2. Facility design

Every facility that handles produce from the packing shed to the processor or cannery must be designed by a certified designer and pass a plan review process governed by a legal authority before construction. All such facilities must be inspected by a government entity and approved before operation. Existing designs must be brought up to standards immediately or cease operation. This also applies to the retailer.

3. Potable water

Only water that has met the chemical, biological and radiological standards for potability may contact produce at any stage of the growing, harvesting, packing and processing chain. This includes the retail level. All water supplies used anywhere in the produce industry must be approved prior to construction. Existing systems must be immediately resigned or abandoned if they cannot meet such requirements

4. Personal Hygiene

All persons handling produce at any step of the supply chain must be certified to be in good health on a frequent basis, and may not touch produce with bare hands. Adequate plumbed facilities that include approved waste disposal and hand washing must be provided anywhere produce is produced or handled.

5. Food Safety Management Systems

Food safety management system that includes a hazard analysis of each step of production must be in place at any produce operation, with the controls verified and validated for effectiveness by a competent authority having jurisdiction. This applies to the retail level.

All produce must be treated to reduce pathogenic microorganisms to a safe level. Such treatments must be validated as safe and effective and included in an operations food safety management system. Such management systems must include a microbiological testing program for all water used, all surfaces touched by produce and the general environment, in process tests as well as end product tests to verify the effectiveness of controls, irregardless of the type of commodity. Such programs shall show the continuing absence of pathogenic microorganisms. The application of the HACCP risk assessment concept as outlines by CODEX is mandatory to apply to all such testing program. Such risk assessments shall apply starting at the seed supplier level then proceed from the farm level through retail.

The retailer shall provide the same levels of safety controls and testing as his suppliers for products under his immediate control.

6. Industry level food safety controls

No buyer shall purchase produce without first ensuring first-hand that the operation meets all the safety requirements as stated above. The use of third parties are only an option when the retailer pays for such service and the service is itself accredited by a competent legal authority who has enforcement power over both the third party and the buyer.

7. Government level public health controls

No produce operation shall be allowed to operate without first obtaining an approval from a competent authority having jurisdiction. Such authority shall make frequent inspections of such operations as often as necessary to ensure compliance with laws and rules governing food safety and take the necessary action to protect the public when needed.

8. Traceability

Every individual unit of produce shall bear an identifying code that at a minimum is traceable through every step of the supply chain. Such coding shall be maintained by the retailer so that in the event of a recall, the public will know exactly which producers and handlers are involved. This information shall be made immediately available to the consumer in the event of knowledge of a hazard or risk to public health.

9. Transportation

Any means of conveyance of fresh produce shall be designed and operated according to these same requirements and under the control of a competent legal authority.

10. Education and Training

No entity shall operate any produce type operation until all management level personnel can demonstrate knowledge of food safety, food safety management systems and HACCP through the taking of an accredited course of instruction and pass an accredited examination. No employee shall work with produce in any capacity without having taken and passed an approved food safety training program that includes the principles of HACCP.

11. On farm risk assessment

No farming operation shall be used to grow produce for human consumption without first meeting the approval of a competent authority having jurisdiction. Such approval shall be based on a risk assessment that shows there is no reasonable threat to public health from any feature of the growing operation or surrounding environment

12. Consumer Education

The produce industry shall fund, create and market the best practices methods for safe consumer handling of its products. The effort must be a national campaign and designed so that consumers know the unavoidable risks of eating fresh produce and the safety precautions they can take. Such campaigns will use current media, retailers shall make such educational materials available to consumers at the point of sale, and poll consumers to gauge the effectiveness of the outreach efforts and publish the results.

Subway's Sick FSMS

Roy Costa — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:44:14 -0500

The verification of supplier food safety has emerged as a critical component of a retail operation’s Food Safety Management System (FSMS), but we continue to see Subway stress supplier safety while poor management of its own operations results in outbreaks of foodborne illness.

See Bill Marler's Food Safety News to learn how a Subway contributed to a community wide outbreak of norovirus gastroenteritis.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/07/sick-subway-employees-went-to-work-during-norovirus-outbreak/

In light of the costs borne by the supply chain to satisfy retail industries’ high standards for prevention, it is unfair for a firm as influential as Subway to have lax control over its own operations.

It’s critical to have safe lettuce coming in the backdoor, but if an infected employee handles it, it negates all the costly prevention done upstream by suppliers. The revelation that this was allowed to happen creates animosity on the part of suppliers and undermines Subway’s own efforts at supplier control.

Subways’ food safety management system failed as the result of poor decision making; what we see here is the failure of food safety culture. Subway has an obligation to consumers who expect the company to be a supplier of safe wholesome food. Subway has an obligation to its suppliers to maintain the same vigilance over food safety they expect from them. By failing its obligations, Subway risks the reputation it has built, and the value of its brand.

As consumers, we should expect MUCH more of Subway. As food safety professionals, we should ask “what is the root cause of this failure” and “how best can Subway’s management solve the problem”.

A Consumer Looks at Food Safety

Roy Costa — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:58:37 -0500

To post guest's articles, please contact rcosta1@cfl.rr.com

A Consumer Looks at Food Safety

by Lauren Bailey

It’s a sad fact that many food safety hazards and issues are discovered by accident by a consumer. Consider any food safety scare from the last year: the Jensen Farm cantaloupes from Granada, Colorado, or the E. Coli outbreak in Europe, two huge stories that point to the overall fragility of consumer health and the hefty responsibilities of the food industry. Food safety is a chief concern among U.S. health officials precisely because it involves the entirety of the American people, and yet big mistakes seemingly occur every year.

As consumers, we largely have to assume that wholesale food producers know what they’re doing; we implicitly trust they are meeting regulation standards and that those standards are sufficient to ensure our safety. Every time we purchase of raw fruits and vegetables, when we pick up a cut of meat at the butcher’s, we do so on good faith that the food won’t harm us. But more and more often we hear stories that give us pause over our long-held faith in food. I think these popularized food safety issues are one of the greatest challenges facing the American consumer today.

Allow me to elaborate.

A New Headline Every Day

Whether it’s a story about “pink slime” in processed beef products or alarming BPA levels in canned goods, there’s always a new food scare driving the health section of popular media outlets. It’s enough to create a perpetual atmosphere of fear and distrust among many consumers. But the unfortunate truth is that these huge food scares usually revolve around a highly isolated incident—maybe a dozen people fall seriously ill over a certain contaminated good. But the backlash that follows the story will completely cripple any producer of that good, even if their facility was in no way involved in the food scare. People will understandably have a knee-jerk reaction to stories about potentially hazardous foods if they hear about it 24/7.

In the case of the Jensen Farms cantaloupe scare, with the ensuing listeria outbreak, people steered clear of anything having to do with the fruit for a good while. The infamous case of E. Coli and bagged spinach a few years ago severely hurt overall spinach sales, even though the outbreak was traced to specific producers and not to all spinach sellers. If consumers are told to be wary of a food, they’ll listen. But why is it that we get the most information about food safety from these isolated incidents, and not from the producers themselves?

More awareness in supermarkets

It seems to me that the first step to increase the average consumer’s awareness of food safety should be taken by food producers and distributors. Whenever you step into a supermarket, the only signs you’ll encounter will be those advertising the cheapest deals on goods. Or you’ll be met with a gaggle of products that exclaim their organic or whole grain components. Not enough grocery stores (nor the food items that they sell) warn consumers about the potential health risks of certain foods. The recent CDC report concerning the high sodium consumption of most Americans confirms as much, because the vast majority of us consume far more sodium than we would believe. We do this because it’s never completely clear how much sodium is in many processed or canned goods. We might be able to read the sodium levels on a product, but without a means to contextualize those numbers we won’t know what to do with them.

It’s the same case for any component of a food that’s detrimental in excess: fatty foods, sugary foods, highly processed foods all need to be much more clear about the health risks they pose to the average consumer. If the food industry doesn’t take steps to be more transparent about health benefits and risks of their products, then we can probably expect many more isolated food scares that probably could have been prevented.

By-line:

This guest post is contributed by Lauren Bailey, who regularly writes for accredited online colleges. She welcomes your comments at her email Id: blauren99 @gmail.com.

Food Service Industry Push Back on Letter Grades

Roy Costa — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:40:08 -0500

I am for a more fair system when it comes to inspections and grading. The grading numbers may not mean much, and this is because inspections are snap shots of events and there are all sorts of bias and human elements. However, when the facility maintains its records of food safety efforts, its more like seeing a moving picture. When inspections or audits make an evaluation based on what they see, and what they determine to be required in the firm's food safety program, now you have something that has the ability to be meaningful. Its the firm's daily practices that will make or break a sanitation program. Lets start evaluating that.

But wait, that means a food service operation has to have an internal food safety program to evaluate!

Too bad restaurants don't have to do have one, its not required, they "just follow the code".

That mentality doesn't work and all this controversy about grading being a poor measure is true; but it is just a subterfuge for the fact that the FS industry as a whole will not agree to a mandatory self-control program that would allow checks and balances. Fortunately, most of the rest of the supply chain has.

Here is what the FRA has to say about grading in 2005,

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/no-state-issued-letter-grades-for-restaurant-inspe/nJwwH/

and thier stance has not changed, in aspite of the fact that reports from agencies with letter grading support risk reduction has occurred.

If this is to catch on we have to overcome some of the problems that are rightly recognized. Its just we have not understood what food safety management is and applied it to Food Service and this means we have no real measurement we can rely on.

The latest pushback from NYC.

NEW YORK: City Council throws rotten tomatoes at restaurant grades
11.mar.12
New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/city-council-throws-rotten-tomatoes-restaurant-grades-article-1.1036545?localLinksEnabled=false
It is but a slight exaggeration to say that everyone who eats in a restaurant in New York City — which means essentially everyone who lives, works or visits — loves the A, B and C placards posted in eatery windows.
Those grades, based on Health Department inspections, have had powerful effects. They have improved restaurant sanitation, reduced food-borne illnesses like salmonella and boosted business at restaurants that have earned the top mark.
What’s not to like?
Ask the City Council and Speaker Christine Quinn.
The industry has fought letter grading from the moment the Bloomberg administration floated the idea. Restaurateurs have griped repeatedly that inspections are too tough, fines are too high and the marks are based on poorly chosen criteria.
Now, Quinn & Co. have produced a survey purporting to find that the program desperately needs reform. A questionnaire asked restaurateurs their opinions about the grading. Of the city’s 24,000 restaurants, 1,297 responded.
Based on the survey, Quinn is calling for a reevaluation of the violation system, an ombudsman to adjust inspection results before hearings are held and an “early warning system” to weed out supposed inconsistencies in inspections.
She needs to get specific and prove her proposals will not undermine the most important consumer protection in recent New York memory.

FDA and Industry-Stop Fighting and Start Cooperating

Roy Costa — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:35:29 -0500

Its evident that the FDA regulated food industry does not want to pay user fees. With the political climate being what it is, FDA may not get sufficient funding to carry out its mandates.

If this is the way government and industry decides on what is best for the public health, then the consequences need to be assessed and some sort of alternative developed. See:

http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/print/88970

The problem is that there is no united opinion on on how best to develop an industry led government-private sector initiative that is universally adopted. The the current system of competing private standards has shown its limitations and we need more than this.

The FSMA should become the universal standard for industry compliance and conformance, a radically new approach, but totally common sense.

Much of what the FDA says needs to be done can be done through cooperation, allowing FDA to take a less aggressive position in regulation, This can happen only if voluntary compliance will work and industry will accept FDA standards as the bible, and FDA as the leader.

The potential savings for everyone could be maximized by developing the key programs and criteria that could be used by industry to support the FDA mission. If industry wishes to keep the current model of self inspection and provate standards, in line with the new model of mandatory reporting of FDA compliance, all the better.

Furthermore, FDA should start discussions about interagency agreements and contracts with state and local health departments to provide manpower to see how much can be saved through this approach.

Beyond the current FDA guidance documents, I propose a system that relies on mandatory reporting by the private sector to government.

This measure is not as perfect as an FDA inspector in the field. but competent industry personnel, working under strict management and oversight of FDA is a good half way point.

The electronic reporting requirements can easily be developed. FDA manpower and technology could better be used in this approach.

As a minimum I would suggest:

Establish the food safety criteria to be used by FDA regulated segments, starting with the highest risk operations and develop reporting formats, this should move ahead if the funding issues can be dealt with
Establish the qualification for third party second party and first party inspection for each of the critical sectors newly under FDA, this has to be done anyway
Develop the oversight standards of the agency, not limited to frequency of reporting, criteria for determining risk, and interventions
Establish the reporting database and security measures for the data entry

The application of technology is a key benefit in moving forward, especially if funding is minimal as predicted. Industry already has the experience in electronic reporting, and government should work with industry to further develop the methods already in use to collect and disseminate food safety data and manage risk in the food supply.

Instead of fighting over money, I would suggest a new spirit of can do and a frank discussion of how we can help one another.

Environmental Health Down on the Farm

Roy Costa — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:06:01 -0500

As an environmental health professional, I have enjoyed a successful career in hands-on food protection from farm to table. My success in this wide array of conditions has come through the effective application of environmental health principles.

Nowhere in food safety today is environmental health needed more than down on the farm, where the environmental health risks factors are becoming better understood. As a sanitarian and independent food safety auditor, there are some key areas of environmental health in my work on the farm; water quality, animal control, and worker hygienic standards. Private food safety auditors have started calling these the "Three W’s" for Workers-Water-and Wildlife.

Typical tomato wash water used to rinse picking buckets

Downstream effects of the environmental health problems originating on produce farms are huge. The problems reverberate through the the rest of the controls we have in place. Because the risks are not well controlled, we need more and more robust surveillance, traceability and product recall ability, testing; and of course, redress for victims in court. These unfortunate individuals and their families hold the bag at the end of the system without much control. The cost burden on the food industry due to outbreaks is remarkable. The Listeria problem in cantaloupe may cost industry $150 million in legal fees, alone. All of this has happened because we have not effectively established in the produce industry a relatively few environmental health protections that should have been there years ago.

Thinking optimistically, we can fix most of the produce contamination problem during growing and harvesting of produce by effective controls over workers; water supplies and usage in all its forms; and wildlife. We can ease the pressure on the supply chain, and minimize the downstream effects on consumers and society at large.

Agriculture has been side by side with animal husbandry and wild animal populations forever, so we cannot expect to remove the zoonotic reservoirs for pathogens completely in farm environments. Therefore, there will always be some risk in fresh produce; but the residual risks passed on in the supply chain will be better managed during packing, processing and handling downstream, if the microbial burden is low.

Vaccination maybe an option to protect against E coli infection in cattle, since we have one with efficacy; but granted, this protection has had poor discussion and vaccines have not been applied. If we had an effective vaccine and farmers would use it, one would start there. Ideally, we would reduce the incidence of pathogenic E coli in cattle (the reservoir) through vaccination, and then move on to exclude the wild animal populations and clean up water sources.

It is likely that adequate fences and other animal barriers, adequate setbacks (still don’t know what this means in every case), water treatment (when needed), strict adherence to personal hygiene, self-inspection and maintenance will solve most of the E. coli and Salmonella problem in growing areas.

We can do this, but a coordinated national efforts is not so simple, and everything has a cost. Somebody must pay, then somebody must make sure it gets done, and financial resources are not necessarily there.

The farms I see would need about $10,000 to $50,000 (could be higher for some) of initial investment, and probably at least 10% of that for yearly maintenance, to implement effective wild animal exclusion measures. The cost would be borne by the farmer in addition to the many other costs of Good Agricultural Practices(GAP), like personal hygiene, training, use of antimicrobials and water treatment, liquid and solid waste controls, that he currently pays for.

Not all farms need the same intensity of controls; I see irrigation water coming out of deep wells as clean as tap water (Total Coliform < 1 cfu), and often the crops see no foliar applications. I see other situations where the foliar application of water is sourced from the surface, and must be treated.

Animal intrusion risks vary widely also; there are some farms in the Southeast where I see only isolated dogs, cats, or bird exposures with an occasional rodent or ground animal.

On some other occasions, I see systematic deer, pig and other wildlife intrusion and extensive droppings. Sometimes we find feces to the extent where harvesting must be halted, and/or production stopped.

In the western US, I see the cattle operations butted right up to produce production; the Salinas Valley in California has much different space requirements, resource needs, and land use issues then Immokalee in the Florida Everglades. As an aside, during our private investigation of the 2006 spinach E coli matter, I sampled one cow patty from a Salinas area hillside pasture and recovered an E. coli: O157:H7 isolate (but not the outbreak strain). One lucky random sample? Or is this bug seriously rampant in this area?

In addition, there are areas with water diversion and flooding problems (due to drought conditions we have not seen much of this factor in outbreaks) and several other environmental health risks we can point out across the board in agriculture.

This is all manageable, and makes it more manageable for us to put into place all of the other safeguards we now need.

On the farm we have “in your face" environmental health problems similar to those that are already addressed by the existing environmental health profession.

We need environmental health professionals to fix environmental health down on the farm, and they can do it, its as simple as that.

Food Safety Auditors Attacked in Media Feeding Frenzy

Roy Costa — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:17:40 -0500

Nothing affects everyday people every day more than the food they eat. So stories about food generate lots of interest. Of course, we all want our meals to be safe, and the industry takes precautions to try to ensure that happens, but in produce safety, there are a lot of misunderstandings and wrong things being said today that have the potential to do more harm than good.

The produce industry has accepted that it has a hazardous group of products, which include melons, berries, leafy green vegetables, cucumbers, papaya and tomatoes, among others. Industry has attempted hazard control since the early 1990’s when produce-borne outbreaks became widespread. At that time, there were few if any requirements for microbial food safety down on the farm. Such efforts now include testing of irrigation water, safe use of fertilizers, exclusion of farm animals, personal hygiene, and the sanitation of the on-farm operations (such as the packing shed at Jensen Farms), but we are not moving fast enough. Keep in mind the demand for fresh fruits and vegetables has increased exponentially in the last 20 years.

We are still waiting after 20 years, for a coordinated effort by government, industry and academia to right the wrongs of the past. What we see in this long drawn out scenario is the basic collapse of our public health infrastructure and our inability to address the shear magnitude on farm environmental health. Years of neglect and political interference have marginalized FDA and public health programs across the board, and it is anybody’s guess what if anything can be done now to improve produce safety. We should probably expect from FDA no more than expanded produce guidance documents and the investigation of third party failures, at least for the foreseeable future.

Guidance is OK (although not completely thought out, or so it appears) and we have a good supply of reports, but FDA admits that application of its guidance documents is not universal; in fact FDA does not know to what extent the industry has adopted these self-stated voluntary programs, or their effectiveness.

Within such a vacuum, industry to protect its vital interests has developed numerous food safety schemes and programs with food safety auditing being one important tool in the tool box. An on-farm food safety tool kit contains science- based standards, lab support, traceability systems and educational programs. All of these programs have spun off businesses that have evolved in the vacuum of regulation.

To expect business interests not to affect a private food safety system is totally naive. To expect auditors to become experts in all the different schemes and guidance may be reasonable from the point of view of FDA, but the reality is that the auditor workforce suffers from the same sorts of deficiencies as many government agencies in terms of knowledge and experience. It is important to point out that new skills are needed in a new discipline such as environmental health down on the farm. That not all risks and not all controls are known on the farm, is a given. To expect auditing companies to mandate and enforce a plethora of rules and demand strict adherence when even our government cannot do this and the science is not strong is ludicrous.

Criticism does come with the territory. Auditors like their close cousin’s “regulators”, are attacked whenever food safety problems come to light in their jurisdiction or sphere of influence. We must grant however, that overlooked gross deficiencies should not have occurred in any proactive and effective system. There should not have been dozens of dead rats on the floor of PCA. Jensen Farms should not have had water dripping from overhead areas on to products. Con Agra should not have operated a peanut butter plant with a wall down and raccoon tracks on the floor of production areas. These obvious problems should have been caught by the auditor or inspector, if not by the firms themselves. These firms should have been proactive, instead some forms just wait around for an auditor to correct deficiencies. This is actually another story that needs be told, and probably a more important one for the advancement of the cause then the constant bashing of auditors and such firms.

In the case of the auditor, what follows negative findings? The auditor writes a report and it gets submitted to a buyer, buying decisions are made, and the auditor moves on. There is no mechanism to enforce anything, or re-inspection, which only exists for his inspector cousins.

Overlooked sanitation issues are troubling to the auditing community because most auditors do catch such obvious defects. Third party assessments are mostly effective; but how effective, none can tell. As in any prevention program, there are no data to show how many outbreaks would have occurred in the absence of such audits. Nevertheless, we have had 2 terrible audits linked to 2 massive outbreaks. This does point to problems in the system, and more discussion will assuredly produce more questions. In essence, what we are seeing is the marginalizing of public health protection by the business model; the model the industry has had to rely on since there are few other public health protections available in farming today.

The media feeding frenzy over this topic will continue until the bare bleached bones of these hapless auditors are exposed for all to see. But just remember that these systems were developed by the buyers to assure a continuing supply of safe fresh fruits and vegetables, not as a defacto regulation of the industry, and auditors are not regulators.

And to my media friends, please also check your facts, stop repeating mistakes like the “Primus auditor should have required the melon wash water to be chlorinated” when the 2009 FDA melon guidance does not require it.

In your frenzy, remember that third party standards are all the public has to protect them, right now.

So OK USA Today, fire away.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-01-24/produce-marketing-association/52780194/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+News-Opinion+%28News+-+Opinion%29

Jensen's hot potato passed to the auditor

Roy Costa — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:19:55 -0500

Looks like we will not see then end of the Jensen/Frontera/ Primus Auditor issue for some time. While there is plenty of room for criticism of Jensen, Fonterra, and Primus there are also problems with FDA, and this tragic incident has become a hot potato being passed to and fro by congress.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/ucm174171.htm

I keep reading FDA's take on this as if they had an actual law in place that people had to follow, and actual inspectors in the field for enforcement, and an educational arm. FDA still has no muscle on the farm, just a law now on the books that is lagging behind. Until they get thier ACT together, it’s not fair to blame the industry for not getting it together when they themselves cannot.

I am not defending anyone, but if I were, I could look at the 2009 FDA Guidance for melon and wonder where it says that Jensen should have used a chlorinated hydro cooler to cool melons. FDA says it’s safe to use flowing water of satisfactory quality without an antimicrobial to cool melons. Nowhere does it say melons had to be pre-cooled, anywhere. In fact according to FDA, melons can be field packed and placed directly into a cooler. A hydro cooler (this is a refrigerated, circulated water bath, tank or drench that may also contain ice) is recommended, but the flowing water method is allowable, according to the guidance. Any auditor who would read the Melon Guidance of 2009 would have said FDA has no requirement to use an antimicrobial IN SINGLE PASS WASH WATER.

And here we have more from Leavitt and Partners, a DC consulting firm, taking shots at the auditing company from left field and just repeating the double talk while not really understanding what they are saying. But of course, this is business.

This whole discussion is beginning to smell and is turning into a witch hunt and a diversion for the fact that we have next to no currently enforced laws in produce safety. As result, we see systematic failure of the food safety protection they would afford us. And so industry has taken on itself this huge challenge of agricultural food safety and failures are occurring, and will continue. Third party audits are not designed for public health protection, and even if strengthened they will not their place.

And when and how does FDA propose to notify the industry about the minimum requirements under the FSMA? Most folks I speak to don't have a clue what to do.

This sad scene points not just to failure of audits, but reveals food safety at the primary production level of our food supply has been neglected. It’s going to take decades to educate farmers and to fix the problems spread over millions of acres of land and thousands of farming operations. The failures include FDA not being able to enforce rules or educate the industry, and if I sound like I am repeating myself, I am.

The third party food safety audit system was never intended to stand in the place of regulation. If we as auditors were supposed to enforce FDA Guidance, and now Laws, just how is that supposed to work? There is no mechanism for that.

Where are the thousands of competent people to do this job, the army who understand agriculture and how to do a produce risk assessment, commodity by commodity? How are small producers like the Jensen brothers supposed to cope with the detailed scientific risk assessment he and now thousands like him must by law perform?

This situation has got to be solved by industry and FDA working together, and proper funding and research.

Fix the mess first with regulations and guidance, then maybe there is some justification that Jensen and the rest of us should have known better.

Passing the hot potato is only going to burn more consumers.

http://leavittpartnersblog.com/2012/01/investigation-of-cantaloupe-listeria-outbreak-has-congress-asking-serious-questions-around-third-party-audits/?

Improving the effectiveness of third party food safety audits

Roy Costa — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:15:24 -0500

The controversy continues over the value of third party audits in food safety at the fresh produce level, as pointed out by Professor Doug Powell at Kansas State University in his BITES blog.

Jim Prevor, produce industry analyst, says changes are needed, while the law firm Marler-Clark is suing a food safety auditor and a third party auditing firm.

The lingering question remains, "how can we improve this system"?

Third party audits are best implemented when there are regulatory controls over the audited operations, thus underpinning them.

In their absence, third party audits are flawed by a lack of standard government requirements such as the preapproval of equipment, structures, layout and design, waste disposal methods and potable water sources.

Third party food safety audits are currently conducted as part of a firm’s overall quality assurance program. The audits are simultaneously environmental risk assessments, regulatory compliance assessments, evaluations of production processes and analyses of management controls.

Food safety auditors, auditing companies, standard setting and certification bodies, and all players in the produce supply chain share a common interest. These partners should work together through a logical and cooperative approach guided by the best available science, to protect public health, and in so doing, their own interests.

Suggestions for improving the third party food safety auditing processes include:

Changing the roles of the Audit Company, Buyer, and Customer:

Currently, buyers (retailers, middlemen, brokers, marketing groups) require that suppliers schedule and pay for an audit with an auditor or auditing company. Since the auditee makes such arrangements, they are the customers of the audit firm. The auditor is beholden to the “customer” to establish the time and location of the audit in advance. The auditee also negotiates the price, and can even request a particular auditor, although the final decision as to which auditor to assign in generally left to the auditing firm.

If roles are reversed, and the “buyer” becomes the “customer”, then the buyer would schedule the audit, and the buyer would pay for the auditing firm for the audit. The buyer would then receive the audit report directly and have control over its dissemination. Most importantly, this process would allow for an unannounced audit to occur. Auditing firms know that scores of announced audits are often much lower that announced ones, suggesting observational bias that this method might filter out.

The Buyer, as the Customer, would become the driving force behind audits, their timing, stringency, frequency and interpretation.

Fee arrangements and the practical aspects of doing business may pose hurdles to this approach, but the resulting value to buyers may make this method attractive enough to induce changes in the current business models.

Roles of government and auditing firm:

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) currently addresses the need for auditor competency when working in post-harvest operations under federal jurisdiction and as part of FDA’s “Foreign Supplier Verification Program”. Auditing companies should require that auditors become fully familiar with existing FDA produce safety guidance and the new requirements of the FSMA, especially the requirements for a hazard analysis and science-based controls.

The FDA should begin an effort to meet with buyers and auditing company executives to discuss partnerships, and establish liaison with them to coordinate their activities around meeting the goals of the FSMA.

The FDA should protect auditors under whistle blower protection provisions and require that the Buyers (as the drivers of the model) provide to them all third party documents related to food safety within 10 days. The third party risk assessment findings should drive the need for FDA to conduct its own rapid response risk assessment within 30 days, if and when necessary to protect public health.

Auditing companies should report “automatic failures” resulting from adulteration to FDA within 24 hours.

Transparent communications should happen between the FDA, auditing firms and buyers. FDA should make known its own compliance records in a timely fashion. Third parties should not audit any facility operating under FDA sanctions until such firms are in substantial compliance.

When third party audit criteria are less stringent than federal rules, their value as a risk assessment tool is negated. Risk assessments, especially newly adopted ones such as Global GAP- should be scrutinized. Currently, the failure to have toilets available to field workers in Global GAP would not trigger an automatic failure, this standard also allows hand gel to replace hand washing, such unsanitary practices are not acceptable under the FSMA.

Reassessments by buyers and auditing firms

A buyer should be required to perform a reassessment either through a third party auditing firm or through its own (2nd party) audit, in any operation where corrective actions must be verified.

The following should trigger a reassessment audit;

A Critical Control Point failure in a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) based system.
An automatic failure of the audit.
Laboratory or others test indicating a microbial, chemical or physical hazard exists in a facility, product or process.
Significant noncompliance with FDA rules (when published).
Significant repeated failures of the food safety management system.

Expanded role of microanalysis

Because auditors have access to a supplier's micro-testing results, they can base risk assessments on the findings. Expanded micro-testing will allow auditors to make better judgments concerning the microbiological quality of products, equipment, and water used in a wide variety of processes and environments.

The government and science community, including researchers, academicians, and practitioners should work together to enable a more accurate microbial risk assessment.

The future of third party audits

In the short-term, there is no viable substitute for third party risk assessments in fresh produce operations. Buyers are not prepared to audit the many suppliers they have by themsleves, and government bodies are not adequately funded to begin the process of regulating the full multitude of suppliers, domestic and international.

In the long-term, an effective FDA would reduce the need for constant oversight by third parties, but this does not appear to be a certainty given the political and economic picture as it appears today.

Self-audits (internal audits or 1^st party audits) are much underutilized. Supplier “self-reporting” directly to buyers could provide data so that audit frequencies could be adjusted using a risk-based approach.

The best alternatives to improve produce safety through third party audits may include:

· Buyer financing and coordination of the audit
Unannounced audits
· FDA involvement in the third party audit process including determining auditor competency, training and oversight
Risk based frequencies for audits based on self-reporting
· Transparency of all audit and inspection findings by all concerned
· Validated physical, chemical and microbial standards
· Expanded use of 1^st and 2^nd party audits

Toilet Paper Audits and the Writing on the Wall

Roy Costa — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:04:41 -0500

The noted microbiologist Mansour Samadpour has recently suggested to Bloomberg’s Stephanie Armour that (See Bill Marler's blog)

“You can make these audits useful by writing them on toilet paper. Then someone would at least use them,” said Mansour Samadpour, president of Lake Forest Park, Washington-based IEH Laboratories and Consulting Group, a food-safety consulting firm, in an interview. “They’re worthless. They give a false sense of security.”

http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/the-best-quote-ever/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MarlerBlog+(Marler+Blog

Are third party audits currently useless to buyers and to the supplier who pays for them?

I think we need to clarify how the buyers can best use these reports, and how to improve the reporting process rather than throwing stones at one another...no one is shatterproof.

Understand that assuring food safety in the fresh produce supply chain is very different in many ways from assuring the safety of the meat, poultry, dairy or other food industries, most of which are highly regulated.

Currently, there are some alternatives to the independent third party risk assessment on farms, but those solutions are a ways off. Some state regulators are focusing in on the agricultural sector, but today the regulation and enforcement of food safety standards is left to the industry.

The “food safety industry” is quite competitive and diverse; private labs compete for market share against auditing firms with labs, auditing firms compete with other auditing firms, standard setting and certification bodies compete, pest control services also compete with chemical suppliers who also own auditing firms.

Therefore, understanding what is being said by firms like IEH Laboratories and Consulting Group about its competitors requires some retrospection.

The testing of agricultural products for safety by labs today is not routine. However, as this trend grows we may eventually see a produce firm that "has passed a Lab test" involved in an outbreak just as we have seen raw meat facilities that have passed government inspection and laboratory analysis involved.

I would like to ask Mr. Mansour if he would be just as critical of labs for giving a "false sense of security" when the products they test cause outbreaks? Is USDA inspection worthless if inspected products cause outbreaks?

It is clear to me that third party audits are needed in the absence of any other outside controls of primary producers at this time. The produce industry, together with the food safety industry that supports it, should consider the following soft spots in this process:

Audits are routinely announced, meaning that the time of the audit is known ahead of time by all parties. An auditing firm that conducts both announced and unannounced audits reports that the differences in the score between the two measures can be 10 percentage points or more. Risk based inspections do not necessarily require unannounced visits as the risk in a process can usually be determined from operations, but at least some announced audits are a good idea.

Buyers currently are empowered by their customers to go outside the recognized certified sellers if product is needed. The pool of unregulated and unsupervised facilities is still large. It is not uncommon to have an audited, certified and even inspected produce operation, operating beside an unregulated unaudited firm. Inconsistencies like that cause animosity and dysfunction.

· The pressure on buyers, especially brokers and other middlemen to buy from anyone, results in placing some operations in a competitive disadvantage. There is no clear answer to this as some operations just simply ignore the requirements that others must follow and can still sell their products.

The standards the third parties use are written by the buyers. These are also the entities that evaluate the findings, and make buying decisions supposedly based on conformance to their standard. Buyers cannot raise the bar so high as to eliminate a large share of the supply chain and thus develop those standards so as to be inclusive of the current levels of sanitation and safety in the industry- which can be less than perfect. I have not seen yet where a low score on an audit has caused an operation to go out of business. An outbreak will do this, but not a low or even failing score. In today's market, if the supplier has needed product, the volume and the physical quality, he will be able to sell it to a customer somewhere with our without a passing grade, even with or without an audit of any type.

Retailers and their own culture effect food safety audit systems in produce.

I was in a well-known market the other day and saw next to the open bin of cracked and otherwise damaged mixed tree nuts (with no traceability), bags of packed nuts, clean and unbroken with source codes. The bagged nuts were about 50% more expensive.

Rather than using audit reports for toilet paper, buyers should instead be using them to make decisions and all involved in the private assurance of produce food safety systems should read the writing on their own wall.

Desperate Times on the Farm

Roy Costa — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:07:57 -0500

As we trudge along in food safety at the farm level, the sense of desperation is obvious, but there is hope and movement forward.

Not only is the produce industry reeling from the recent food safety disasters in its products, the pressure is on in the labor market and on the economic front. Growers and packers of fresh fruits and vegetables seem just as isolated as any group in their problem. They are seeking help, and this is positive, and the answer may be a more cooperative approach.

We in food safety must realize we are superimposing a self-regulatory and soon to be regulatory framework on an industry that has not had this to deal with. FDA is supporting industry efforts to self-regulate, and the two together can accomplish much, but we still need produce industry specifications for suppliers based on sound science.

The article below makes a point of the need for cooperative efforts amongst industry and government. Part of that is for FDA to ensure that the standards industry uses to assure safety are effective in very diverse crops.

Some of the audio is a bit garbled, but Tony Piedimonte of Florida's Wm P Hearne company makes some salient points about the industry stance.

Thanks to the Packer for covering the following story.

http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/Food-safety-labor-issues-discussed-at-Florida-Ag-Expo-133632553.html

A New Role for the Environmental Health Professional in Produce Food Safety

Roy Costa — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:45:44 -0500

While the Environmental Health professional’s role in food safety is marginalized in some places (such as in Florida, where the Environmental Health staff conduct less than 10% of the food safety inspections) there is a growing need for their involvement directed toward the safety of fresh produce.

With experience in the safety of water, land use, plans review, wastewater disposal and treatment, soils, vector control, the use of sanitizers, pesticides and the like, I believe the environmental health profession holds one of the best, tangible responses to today’s produce dilemma.

Unless adequate funds become available, the Food Safety Modernization Act, the federal response to the current public health crises affecting our nation’s primary producers, will not provide the solution.

The impact of the repeated outbreaks of foodborne illness should be a stern warning to our nation’s legislators, but they seem oblivious to the problem. When 30 people die from tainted cantaloupe, bells and whistles should be sounding in Washington; instead, its dead air in D.C.

If a terrorist attack killed 30 Americans, would our nation’s leaders say, ”We cannot afford a response...?"

If FDA cannot do this job alone (and why should they?), then we have an untapped resource in our County Public Health Units. There are over 3,000 health departments in the US, with more than enough infrastructures to support the produce food safety regulation/enforcement task, both in facilities and on farms. If properly trained, managed and funded, environmental health professionals could expand the roles they now play in protecting public health, into agriculture.

Rules must be developed and the inspection workforce needs to be trained in a somewhat new discipline, but the qualified Environmental Health Specialist has the capabilities needed now. With proper guidance and support, they can be effective in produce facilities and on farms.

In addition to our local public health professionals, there should also be an expanded role for state Departments of Agriculture and even USDA to help fill in the gaps in produce safety regulation and enforcement.

While we search for ways to prevent the next food safety disaster, consider properly funding and supporting local environmental health protection efforts. Give our county public health units what they need for the effective enforcement of laws and rules and we will see a reduction in foodborne illness.

Lessons Learned from Recent Outbreaks in Fresh Produce-Part 2

Roy Costa — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:20:36 -0500

Lessons Learned From Foodborne Illness Outbreaks

Part 2.

Listeria Outbreak in Cantaloupes

“They probably look at themselves as victims too, but as between the person who bought the cantaloupe in the grocery store, who is more of the victim? And does a grocery store have an obligation to its consumer to not sell them products that are contaminated and from entities that have limited assets and insurance. That’s why it is 100% likely that this cantaloupe outbreak is going to bring in everybody in this outbreak, including the retailers and the auditor and Frontera and Jensen Farms because that’s the only way that the victims - whom we all would agree have far less culpability than the other side of the equation - that’s the only way that these people are going to be fairly treated. But it’s going to be a battle”. Bill Marler.

The Listeria outbreak in cantaloupe is still producing cases. Much has been written about the responsibilities of all involved and what needs to happen to correct deficiencies in our approach to food safety in produce, along with much sadness and much controversy.

As attorney Bill Marler has said in this exceptional interview in the Packer, the legal associations of the packinghouse, retailer, distributor, auditor and consumer are clear, and it is sobering.

Reflecting on Mr. Marler’s perspective, we will look at the chain of legal liability and see how it intersects with the chain of causation to see if we can learn something from these monumental, tragic and frightening events.

One must look at the disease pathway to see the intersections clearly, and it is a complex scenario with Listeria monocytogenes due to this pathogens ubiquitous presence in the environment, its likely ability to create bio-films on the surfaces of plants and inanimate objects and its propensity to cause serious illness in the immune deficient.

In terms of the infection pathway, we do not know whether the causative agent spread to the packinghouse and colonized the equipment, or the equipment was already contaminated by another farming operation due to previous use and spread to the packinghouse as pointed out by FoodSafetyNews.

What we have learned is that conditions at the packinghouse allowed propagation of Listeria monocytogenes at this site, and subsequent conditions eventually affected the entire supply chain. Additionally, contaminated products continued to be sold for an extended period, revealing our failed traceability systems .

On the packinghouse level, once the environment is contaminated, Listeria monocytogenes can spread throughout production and create niches for growth. That conditions were ripe for this at Jensen Farns is now clear, but unfortunately in hindsight.

On the product level, we know from FDA that cantaloupe is potentially hazardous, but this hazard was believed to occur only after cutting the melon.We did not understand the clear probability of the pathogen to not just colonize a melon surface, but also proliferate on it. I believe this chain of causation probably involves growth conditions for the pathogen on the surface of the melon, probably post washing. This phenomena should have been realized, but it was not.

The temperature controls at Jensen would not have been sufficient to control LM after colonization of the melon. Growth would begin at the packinghouse cooler and continue through to the cold-supply chain. Any increase in temperatures in the supply chain would result in accelerated growth, thus amplifying the problem for the next user.

At the level of the buyer, the buyer is obliged to ensure conditions at its supplier do not render a product adulterated. The buyer should maintain controls over the supplier. These can include test of water, tests of products, independent audits, self-audits and second party audits along with letters of indemnity and guarantees. Given that the buyer receives products that may be contaminated, controls should be in place in further distribution to reduce the likelihood of any dangerous product reaching the consumer, pointing to the need for more testing nearest to the consumer level and traceability. It’s interesting that industry has vigorously opposed the random testing of products and has effectively killed some of these programs.

That all involved in this distribution chain now bear responsibility is clear. This is not the first outbreak of a pathogen in cantaloupes. That our standards for handling cantaloupes were too low is painfully clear.

At the level of supplier control, the retail industry must start getting smarter about how to qualify its suppliers, currently the industry-required tests of finished products may be driven by a poorly defined risk assessment, or simply rely on industry practices, The bar is now raised extremely high for quality assurance in the produce industry and we should see a move to integrate technology into the food safety effort at a very high level, especially traceability and end products testing. We should see a major emphasis on water quality, in in-process tests and final tests for products, whether they be directly from a farm, from a packinghouse or from a processor. If there is a gaping hole in the producer-buyer-retailer food safety net, it’s the failure to adopt the best microbial standards and best quality assurance standards and traceability for producers.

At the level of the consumer, an acute problem arises with controlling Listeria. Refrigerator temperatures would not be able to prevent the slow the growth of LM; there have been no consumer advisories on how long or at what temperature to keep whole cantaloupes, making this a unique challenge for the consumer.

This melon’s netted surface hinders removal of LM (especially in a bio film) making washing by the consumer of little effect. Before, during and after preparation, it is common for consumers to leave food before serving without temperature controls and to put the leftover items away at some latter time, potentially allowing proliferation in the cantaloupe meat.

Unfortunately, we have not properly educated the consumer about the intricacies of food safety and they simply do not know in every case of contaminated product hitting them, what to do.

But as food safety professionals, we should know what to do.

Events like this can trigger a bit of fear. In a twist of fate and circumstances, I was auditing a firm less than 100 miles away from the site of the Jensen Farms outbreak about a week before the fateful Jensen Farms audit. I met with farmers just like Mr. Jensen.

I have to ask myself, if I was the auditor, would I have spotted the inconsistencies in production?

Would I have understood the critical environmental factors I was seeing and understood the entire process and its role in the growth of LM?

Would I have appreciated the relationship of the factors I was looking at and reacted to the risk of the survival and growth of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of Jensen Farms' melons?

The answer could be frightening. No, I may not have realized the conditions were ripe for a Listeria outbreak the has killed 28 people to date.

This is a gut wrenching realization and one that has been with me since the day this outbreak began; if we are going to truly perform a valid risk assessment, we need to be carrying a very big bag of tools.

The audit instrument is best used like a surgeon’s scalpel. The scalpel is best for delicately separating the good, from the excellent, from the superior. Sometimes we need a hatchet for the ones that need it, and all we have in our tool kit is a small knife.

We should ask about FDA's prevention role, and the role a strong FDA might have played in preventing this outbreak; and ask about the regulatory scenarios moving forward. Certainly, these events point to the urgent need for FDA to come in and level the food safety playing field. But unfortunately, no one wants to pay for the FDA to do its best work, so now the auditor, the consumer, the packinghouse, the farm the processor, the retailer and the consumer must pay.

Thanks to the strength of our legal process and the skill of our legal firms, that there will be justice in the end. This would bring closure for me, except for the fact that our public health structure is letting us down and my efforts without that crucial element will be forever flawed.

I predict we are going to see more sad stories, failures and more finger pointing, and maybe rightly so.

Lessons Learned-

If there are more hazardous facilities out there, they need to be identified, repaired, or closed.

All produce facilities should be reviewed to make sure they have the correct infrastructure, ideally, before they are allowed to operate.

Buyers must insist on the application of the best quality assurance methods and traceability systems.

Food safety efforts from farm to table need proper financial support.

There needs to be less politics played with food safety and a cooperative effort byindustry and government to protect the consumer.

The education of the American consumer about food safety is woefully lacking.