Until three years ago, Kenneth Maxwell enjoyed Banquet chicken and turkey pot pies so much he ate them three or four times a week. They were easy to prepare, and Maxwell could eat one for lunch and quickly return to work as an electrician.

When cases of salmonella poisoning led the pies' manufacturer, ConAgra Foods, to issue a product recall in the fall of 2007, Maxwell did not hear about it and continued to eat them. He bought several pot pies about two weeks after the recall was launched, when they should have been pulled from store shelves, and became violently ill, he said.

Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune reports this morning that Maxwell's experience reflects common problems with food recalls: They routinely fail to recover all of the product they seek and, according to experts, sometimes even leave tainted foods in stores, putting consumers at risk of becoming ill from potentially deadly foodborne pathogens.

If consumers are suffering from recall fatigue, what about retailers who are supposed to get potentially contaminated product off the shelves?

Communications about recalls with both the public and retailers, must be rapid, reliable, repeated and relevant, and that the produce outbreaks of 2006 marked significant changes in how recall stories were being told on Internet-based networking like YouTube, wikipedia, and blogs.

The Tribune story says a spokesman for Jewel-Osco's corporate parent said relying on the media, posting shelf notices and making sure store employees are prepared to answer customers' questions all have worked with recalls in the past.

Safeway, the parent of Dominick's food stores, contacts shoppers directly in some recalls — typically smaller ones, said spokesman Brian Dowling. But in larger recalls, he said the company's stores rely on other methods to get the word out, such as notices on store shelves and stories in newspapers and on TV and radio.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released the Government's Products Recall app for the Android smartphone at USA.gov website.

And it will be the same boring message. Marshall McLuhan famously said “The medium is the message” (that’s him above, right, in a scene from the movie, Annie Hall). With food safety recalls, it’s the medium and the message, if you want to get people’s attention.

The Maxwells said they have not eaten a Banquet pot pie since the recall.
 

Thanks to Tom Karst of The Packer for taking the time to read submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the agency contemplates preventative controls for fresh produce.

Christine Bushway, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) says “organic agriculture is the most highly regulated system of agricultural production in the U.S., and the USDA-accredited verification system, especially its recordkeeping and inspection requirements, should be recognized and considered by FDA when drafting rules requiring similar features.”

Lots of record-keeping does not mean lots of food safety.

Bushway also says, “the organic system offers an integrated process approach to preventive food safety practices that could stand as a national model for both farming and manufacturing operations. The organic process already contains many steps that contribute to food safety processes and it can be easily integrated into a more elaborate food safety system – especially in processing.”

That’s true, and we said as much back in 2004 (see below). But why is it up to everyone else; why don’t organic processes expand so they can be considered a more rigorous or even certifiable food safety program?

The potential for microbial contamination along the food production chain exists for both conventional and organic food products. Water quality, soil amendments such as composted manure and general sanitation need to be monitored and verified in any food production system. Organic certification is not a food safety certification.

Microbial food safety considerations for organic produce production: an analysis of Canadian Organic Production Standards compared with U.S. FDA guidelines for microbial food safety,” by K.A. Blaine and D.A. Powell. Food Protection Trends 24, no. 4 (2004): pp. 246-252.

Increased attention has been focused on fresh fruits and vegetables, especially raw or minimally processed, as a significant source of foodborne illness. Outbreaks have been linked to both conventionally and organically grown produce. This paper outlines the risks associated with fresh produce, common pathways of contamination, and current trends in organic agriculture. The primary objective was to determine whether the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) organic standard is consistent with the production of microbiologically safe produce and to examine the potential for the CGSB organic standard to include considerations for microbial food safety. This objective was achieved by examining information gaps between the US Food and Drug Administration on-farm food safety guidelines and the organic standard developed by the CGSB. This examination showed a significant degree of commonality and, in some cases, it was demonstrated that microbial food safety standards are achieved indirectly under organic production. The main difference between the U.S. guidelines and the CGSB standard is the focus on the process rather than the safety of the final product,and the lack of discussion of microbial considerations in the CGSB standard. Specific omissions include worker hygiene and recommendations for safe use of processing and irrigation water. The production of safe food is the responsibility of everyone in the farm-to-fork chain. With established relationships between growers and regulatory infrastructure, the CGSB organic standard would be an ideal vehicle for providing organic growers with information and guidelines on identifying and controlling microbial hazards on their produce.
 

America isn’t France, but increasingly dogs are allowed to join folks for a public meal.

Sharon Peters writes in today’s The USA Today that across America, an ever-growing number of eating establishments, many of them high-end, are opening their patios to diners who want to share their eating-out experience with their pets.

Art Smith, owner/chef of the chic Art and Soul restaurant on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C, which draws scores of Washingtonians to its canine-welcoming patio every week, says,

"To appreciate food and life is to appreciate animals, too.”

In canine-crazy Carmel, Calif., many restaurants have pup-friendly patios, including Bahama Billy's Island Steakhouse, where the 16 patio tables are often jam-packed with patrons with pooches.

There are never any outbursts of canine bad behavior, says co-owner Sylvia Sharp. The dogs "seem to view (the patio) as neutral territory, kind of like Switzerland."

At trendy downtown eatery Nosh in Colorado Springs, the massive patio — in the shadow of Pike's Peak — becomes a veritable playground for dogs and owners every summer Sunday. Plastic kiddie pools are filled with water, tables are arranged to maximize romp-around room, and off-leash dogs frolic dog-park style, sniffing up each other (and the humans), sampling treats from the bags of doggie goodies presented free to each diner accompanied by a dog, and coaxing each other into splash-fests.

A friend of mine works for a company in charge of collecting waste oil from restaurants to later turn it into fuel. They also pick up road kill from I-70. It’s a dirty job, but I’m glad somebody is doing it.

The Chinese have taken recycling to a whole new level. The waste oil is “skimmed from kitchen waste” and resold in the black market. The yuck factor is enough reason in itself to blog about, but the practice is also a dangerous one:

“Reused cooking oil would likely contain acrylamide, a chemical that forms naturally when starchy foods are baked or fried. Studies have shown the chemical, which also has industrial uses, causes cancer in lab animals and nerve damage to workers who are exposed to high levels.”

Chinese officials say they are stepping up their efforts to combat this and other food safety issues.