Fda

  • Posted: January 31st, 2012 - 11:25pm by Doug Powell

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking a federal court to prevent a New York cheese manufacturer from operating because of a history of unsanitary conditions and producing cheese in a facility contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

    According to a complaint for permanent injunction filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Mexicali Cheese of Woodhaven, N.Y., and two of its officers, Edinson Vergara and Claudia Marin, produced cheese under persistent unsanitary conditions that contributed to widespread Listeria contamination in Mexicali Cheese's facility.

    In addition, the complaint, filed January 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, says that the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services found similar unsanitary conditions in addition to product contamination.

    Inspections over the last three years, which were set off by the finding of staphylococcal bacteria in a cheese sample in 2009, have turned up a long list of violations, including equipment that was covered in harmful bacteria; flies, maggots and mold in production areas; stagnant pools of dirty water on the floor; and rodent excrement in the supply rooms, the suit said.

    Telephone calls to the company were not answered on Tuesday.

    Mexicali Cheese Corporation, based at 91-52 87th Street, primarily distributes Mexican-style cheese to grocers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

    Inspectors from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets have visited the factory more than 30 times since 2009, according to the report, and F.D.A. inspectors have also made visits. Inspectors said they found listeria on a dolly used to transport cheese throughout the plant, on the aprons of food handlers and in a pool of liquid in a storage area.

    During one inspection, an employee was seen putting cheese in his mouth, then continuing to work without changing his gloves. The suit also said that “employee food handlers were observed wiping perspiration from their faces with their forearms while wearing disposable gloves that only covered the hands up to the wrists, leaving bare forearms exposed and in direct contact with the ready-to-eat cheese being processed.”

    In 2010, the F.D.A. found a batch of Mexicali’s “Queso Cotija” to be contaminated with staphylococcal bacteria, and the company voluntarily recalled the product. But later that year, and again in 2011, when inspectors found there was listeria in the facilities, the company would not recall the nearly 300 pounds of cheese that had been made on the day the samples were taken.

    When pressed by inspectors, Ms. Marin said on both occasions that the cheese had most likely already been consumed, and that no one had reported any illness related to the product. According to the complaint, Mr. Vergara and Ms. Marin agreed that improvements to the plant were necessary, but in follow-up visits, inspectors noted that no changes had been made.

    Mexicali Cheese makes and distributes a variety of soft Mexican cheeses to grocery stores and supermarkets in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Mexicali Cheese’s products include queso fresco [fresh cheese], queso oaxaca [Oaxacan cheese] and queso para freir [cheese for frying].

    If entered by the court, the injunction would stop the company and its officers from manufacturing and distributing food until they can bring their operations into full compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA food safety regulations.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: January 21st, 2012 - 3:27am by Doug Powell

    Roy Costa of Environ Health Associates, Inc. writes:

    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.

    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 their 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 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 take 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.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: January 20th, 2012 - 2:22am by Doug Powell

    lettuce.skull_.noro_.jpg

    If Restaurant Chain A has any sense of values and interest in consumer loyalty, it will immediately go public and say, we had a salmonella outbreak at a bunch of our restaurants, a bunch of people got sick, we’re sorry, and this is what we’re doing to fix the situation.

    Instead what the American public gets from the Centers for Disease Control is a report of a new outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis infections was associated with eating food from a Mexican-style fast food restaurant chain, Restaurant Chain A.

    I understand CDC can’t finger a chain until it’s outed by some other group, or Chain A itself. But since this outbreak has been going on since Oct. 2011, customers of Chain A would probably have liked to know, and those customers should vote with their pocketbooks and avoid Chain A. But like so much in food safety, consumers can’t actually choose.

    CDC says data indicate that contamination likely occurred before the product reached Restaurant Chain A locations and this outbreak now appears to be over.

    As of Jan. 19, 2012, a total of 68 individuals infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Enteritidis have been reported from 10 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state with the outbreak strain was as follows: Texas (43), Oklahoma (16), Kansas (2), Iowa (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), Nebraska (1), New Mexico (1), Ohio (1), and Tennessee (1). Ill persons range in age from <1 to 79 years, and the median age was 25 years old. Fifty-four percent of patients were female. Thirty-one percent of patients were hospitalized. No deaths were reported.

    Public health officials in multiple states and CDC conducted interviews with ill persons to ask questions about exposures during the days before becoming ill. Among 52 ill persons for whom information is available, 60% reported eating at Restaurant Chain A in the week before illness onset. Ill persons reported eating at 18 different locations of Restaurant Chain A in the week before becoming ill. A total of 3 locations were identified where more than one ill person reported eating in the week before becoming ill. This finding indicates that contamination likely occurred before the product reached Restaurant Chain A locations.

    CDC and public health officials in multiple states conducted an epidemiologic study by comparing foods eaten by 48 ill and 103 well persons. Analysis of this study indicates that eating at Mexican-style fast food Restaurant Chain A was associated with illness. Ill persons (62%) were significantly more likely than well persons (17%) to report eating at Restaurant Chain A in the week before illness.

    No specific food item or ingredient was found to be associated with illness due to common ingredients being used together in many menu items. However, among ill persons eating at Restaurant Chain A, 90% reported eating lettuce, 94% reported eating ground beef, 77% reported eating cheese, and 35% reported eating tomatoes. The epidemic curve seen in the outbreak is consistent with those observed in past produce-related outbreaks—with a sharp increase and decline of ill persons that spanned one-to-two months. Ground beef was an unlikely source due to the handling and cooking processes used by Restaurant Chain A.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used information on supply truck delivery routes and schedules to try to identify potential foods associated with reports of illness. FDA collected and analyzed paper and electronic shipping records of suspected foods and various other food products shipped by a food distribution center to Restaurant Chain A locations. After reviewing these records, FDA found locations where more than one ill person reported eating in the week before becoming ill were on two separate trucking routes. Comparison of records from suspected foods received by these locations revealed no commonalities across a variety of suppliers. Despite these additional efforts, no further information was available to assist in identifying a single food item.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: December 22nd, 2011 - 6:53pm by Doug Powell

    “The stars are in our corners” and “Food service beyond expectation since 1960,” are the slogans of catering firm, Triple A Services Inc.

    If listeria is a star and beyond expectation.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that a Chicago-area company has agreed to stop making its ready-to-eat sandwiches and produce after FDA investigators repeatedly found unsanitary conditions and bacterial contamination in the facility.

    The company, Triple A Services Inc., and its owners and operators, Thomas J. Whennen, Scott C. Whennen and David A. Frisco, have agreed to stop producing and distributing the sandwiches and produce as part of a consent decree filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

    The terms of the decree would also require Triple A to hire a sanitation expert to help establish an effective sanitation program, to comply with FDA regulations and to eliminate Listeria contamination from company facilities.

    The government's complaint, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on December 22, 2011, describes Triple A's history of operating under unsanitary conditions and Listeria monocytogenes contamination in the processing facility.

    It also outlines Triple A's failure to comply with Current Good Manufacturing Practice and seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations.

    "FDA took these aggressive actions because Triple A Services continued to violate current good manufacturing practice regulations and allow for conditions that could affect the health of consumers," said Dara Corrigan, the FDA's associate commissioner for regulatory affairs.

    No illnesses have been reported to date from Triple A Services' products.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: December 14th, 2011 - 11:05pm by Doug Powell

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is relying more often on states to inspect food plants but is failing to properly monitor those state inspections or follow through on their findings, the Department of Health and Human Services watchdog has concluded.

    In a report released Wednesday, the department’s inspector general found that a lack of resources is forcing the FDA to lean more heavily on its counterparts at the state level to inspect plants responsible for everything from packing to processing foods.

    More than half the agency’s inspections were done by state officials in fiscal 2009, up from 42 percent four years earlier, according to the report. If these inspections are not done properly, they can expose consumers to sometimes life-threatening illnesses.

    A deadly salmonella outbreak linked to a Georgia peanut processing plant in 2009 occurred after the plant had been inspected several times by state officials working on the FDA’s behalf.

    Wednesday’s report confirms several weaknesses in that relationship, almost all of which the FDA acknowledged were indeed problems. “The report documents glitches we’re aware of. . . . These are things we are working on,” said Mike Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods.

    The report found that the FDA has failed to ensure that the states have completed the number of inspections assigned to them. Of the 41 states the FDA was working with in 2009, eight did not complete 10 percent of the 2,170 inspections they were responsible for that year. The agency paid for 130 of the inspections that were not done.

    The report did not specify how much was paid in those instances. But it did state that the FDA spent more than $8 million for state contract inspections in fiscal 2009.

    The FDA also did not do its part in monitoring the inspections as required by law, according to the report.

    When audits were conducted, the most common problem cited had to do with the state inspectors’ inability to identify violations. At least 32 percent of the 419 inspectors audited had at least one deficiency. The report cited instances in which inspectors failed to note evidence of rodents or a leaky roof above exposed food.

    Even when inspectors noted food safety violations, FDA officials who reviewed the inspectors’ reports did not properly classify all of them, the report said.

    Officials responsible for 11 states said they did not classify some incidents as serious and in need of official action because they thought they were not allowed to, the report said.

    Officials in another 11 states said that FDA was not always notified when actions were taken and therefore could not determine if the violations were properly addressed.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: November 30th, 2011 - 10:46pm by Doug Powell

    Amy was asking me about something speculative and that I said trying to predict such things was a mug’s game.

    The language professor asked, what’s that?

    A foolish, profitless or hopeless undertaking.

    Predicting U.S. allotments for federal agencies is an endless mug’s game that I choose to ignore. I have enough trouble dealing with what’s going on today. Others thrive on that stuff.

    The Washington Post has a story today about a putative boost in funding for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agreed to by Congress (but not the Senate or the President) that I will ignore but does have a couple of juicy quotes about food safety.

    “I mean God forbid to have another recall like this. . . . It just froze the market,” said Mohammad Abu-Ghazaleh, chief executive of Fresh Del Monte Produce in a call with analysts this month. He was talking about the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in spinach.

    God doesn’t have a lot to do with it. He or she or they probably have other things to do than micromanage outbreaks of foodborne illness or help you make that crucial putt on 18.The vast majority of foodborne outbreaks are not acts of god, they are the result of individually minor food safety mistakes in a culture that relegates food safety to a paragraph in the annual report that, over time, synergistically accumulate eventually making people barf or die.

    The story notes that major recalls linked to foodborne illnesses exact real and reputational costs by shaking consumer confidence, but fails to answer the question: would listeria-in-cantaloupe, salmonella-in-peanut crap, E. coli in leafy things have been prevented by a stronger FDA?

    Doubtful.

    I’m all for a regulatory presence that is consistent and evidence-based, farm-to-fork. But that ain’t going to do much for people who will be barfing after eating food today.

    Scott Faber, a vice president at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said, “At a time when some industries are trying to handcuff their regulators, the food industry is advocating for a stronger regulator with more powers and more resources. … We’re competing with manufacturers all over the world. Maintaining and burnishing FDA’s reputation helps us open doors in those markets.”

    Sounds nice but the responsibility to produce safe food lies with the producer, processor, retailer, restaurant, whoever is dishing it up. An industry group wanting more government oversight is also saying, we give up, it’s your problem.

    Those that care about safe food will stop wasting their time with government and get on with it; then brag about it; then capture more market at retail.

    The rest is a mug’s game.

     

    Your rating: None (3 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: November 28th, 2011 - 3:51pm by Doug Powell

    JoNel Aleccia of msnbc reports that turning imperfect, mislabeled or outright contaminated foods into edible -- and profitable -- goods is so common that virtually all producers do it, at least to some extent, sources say.

    “Any food can be reconditioned,” said Jay Cole, a former federal inspector who now works as a senior consultant with The FDA Group, a firm that specializes in helping manufacturers comply with industry regulations.

    For example, when Salmonella Tennessee was detected last year in huge lots of hydrolyzed vegetable protein, or HVP, a flavor enhancer used in foods from gravy mix and snack foods to dairy products, spices and soups, bulk HVP products from Basic Food Flavors Inc. of Las Vegas, Nev., were allowed to be reconditioned by heat-treating the foods to kill the salmonella, according to the FDA. The reprocessed foods were then distributed and sold.

    No question, FDA regulations do permit foods to be reconditioned, said William Correll, the agency’s acting director of compliance. That leeway can avoid both waste and expense, he explained.

    “Some things can be adulterated and fixed, and you’re not throwing out food that would otherwise be OK,” Correll said.

    The key, however, is that the process must render the food safe for consumption.

    “Dilution is not the solution.”

    Similarly, companies that propose to eliminate a serious contaminant without addressing the source are turned down. He recalled a seafood firm with faulty bathroom practices that led to canned crab contaminated with fecal E. coli bacteria. Heat-treating would have eradicated the bugs -- but not the problem, Correll said.

    “If food is adulterated in an unacceptable way, reconditioning won’t fix it,” he said. “You can’t cook the poop out of it.”

    When a school lunch supplier repackaged moldy applesauce into canned goods and fruit cups, it drew a sharp warning from federal health regulators last month -- and general disgust from almost everyone else.

    Correll said mold is tricky because when contamination is extensive, it’s not enough to simply remove the obviously tainted parts and then zap the food with heat.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
    None  |  0 Comments
    assessment, Fda, food safety, reconditioning, safety
  • Posted: November 24th, 2011 - 5:56pm by Doug Powell

    roy.costa_.jpg

    How can the system of audits and marginal inspections be improved to make fresh produce safer?

    With 29 dead and 139 from listeria in cantaloupe, the question has taken on new urgency, although that cycles – many in the farm-to-fork food safety system have exceedingly poor memories once product is flowing again, with prevention soon relegated to nostalgia. Remember the outbreak of 1996? 2006? 2011? (insert date and commodity here).

    Roy Costa writes in his Food Safety & Environmental Health Blog that third party audits are best implemented when there are regulatory controls over the audited operations, thus underpinning  them.

    Costa concludes the best alternatives to improve produce safety and the third party audit process may include:

    • buyer financing and coordination of the audit;
    • unannounced audits;
    • Food and Drug Administration involvement in the third party audit process including training and oversight;
    • risk-based frequencies of regulatory compliance inspections, 2nd and 3rd party audits, and reassessments based on severity;
    • transparency of all audit and inspection findings by all concerned;
    • validated microbial standards; and,
    • expanded use of 1st and 2nd party audits.

    The complete article is available here.

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: November 5th, 2011 - 4:29am by Doug Powell

    JoNel Aleccia of msnbc reports that products recalled earlier this year by a Washington state fruit processor were blamed for illnesses of nine North Carolina children who became sick after eating applesauce at school.

    This illnesses are only now being made public because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wrote a letter to the company, Snokist Growers of Yakima, Wash., saying the company cannot ensure the safety of moldy applesauce and fruit puree that has been reconditioned for human consumption.

    “Your firm reprocesses moldy applesauce product … using a method that is not effective against all toxic metabolites,” read the FDA letter sent Oct. 20 to Jimmie L. Davis, Snokist’s president. “Several foodborne molds may be hazardous to human health.”

    The latest warning came after FDA officials said Snokist failed to adequately address problems identified during a June inspection in which regulators found large, laminated bags of fruit products that were supposed to be sealed and sterile, but instead were broken open and tainted with white, brown, blue, blue-green and black mold.

    Some of the compromised bags were bloated and one had “a strong fermented odor,” the report said.

    The FDA’s letter identified at least eight instances last year in which Snokist had reprocessed the moldy applesauce into canned goods for human consumption. The inspection report said Snokist documents showed the company had reprocessed mold-contaminated applesauce at least 13 times between January 2008 and May 2011, repackaging food into 15-ounce cans, 106-ounce-cans, 300-gallon bags and 4.2-ounce, single-serve cups.

    It's not clear whether the mold-tainted applesauce went to schools. However, the June inspection followed a voluntary recall of more than 3,300 cases of canned Snokist applesauce in May after North Carolina schoolchildren became mildly ill after eating the fruit product. The recall was blamed on faulty seals on cans. The children have since recovered.

    Snokist officials admit that they “rework” some moldy food for future use. But in an e-mail to msnbc.com, company officials said that the contaminated fruit represents only a fraction of the company’s products, that compromised product is typically separated and destroyed, and that any reprocessed food is heat-treated to kill toxins.

    “If rework occurs, our thermal process is more than adequate to render the product commercially sterile,” Tina Moss, a company spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail.

    However, the FDA said the company's tests are not adequate and that officials must prove they're testing for other dangerous microbes: “Most mycotoxins are stable compounds that are not destroyed by heat treatment,” the letter said.

    Snokist applesauce is also sold at retailers. I wonder who the third-party auditor was?

    Your rating: None (3 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: October 20th, 2011 - 6:06am by Doug Powell

     “The contributions of third-party audits to food safety is the same as the contribution of mail-order diploma mills to education. ... I have not seen a single company that has had an outbreak or recall that didn't have a series of audits with really high scores.”
    – Mansour Samadpour, president, IEH Laboratories, Seattle

    “No one should rely on third-party audits to insure food safety.”
    – Will Daniels, food safety, Earthbound Farm

    Billions of meals are served safely each day throughout the world. Much of that food is verified as safe by some form of third-party auditor. Yet when outbreaks of foodborne illness happen, the results can be emotionally, physically and financially devastating. And almost all outbreaks involve firms that have received glowing endorsements from food safety auditors.

    Food safety auditors are an integral part of the food safety system, and their use will expand in the future, for both domestic and imported foodstuffs. How then to make third-party audits more meaningful, more accurate, and to fully enhance the safety of consumers?

    There is a long and spectacular history of food safety failures involving third-party audits (and inspections). Many foodborne illness outbreaks have been linked to farms, processors and retailers that went through some form of certification. The U.S. Government Accountability Office noted in a 2008 report that, while inspectors play an active role in overseeing compliance, the burden for food safety lies primarily with food producers.

    In late Oct. 1996, an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 was traced to juice containing unpasteurized apple cider manufactured by Odwalla in the northwest U.S. Sixty-four people were sickened and a 16-month-old died from E. coli O157:H7. During subsequent grand jury testimony, it was revealed that while Odwalla had written contracts with suppliers to only provide apples picked from trees rather than drops – those that had fallen to the ground and would be more likely to be contaminated with feces, in this case deer feces – the company never bothered to verify if suppliers were actually doing what they said they were doing.

    Earlier in 1996, Odwalla had sought to supply the U.S. Army with juice. An Aug. 6, 1996 letter from the Army to Odwalla stated, “we determined that your plant sanitation program does not adequately assure product wholesomeness for military consumers. This lack of assurance prevents approval of your establishment as a source of supply for the Armed Forces at this time.”

    Five-year-old Mason Jones was one of 157 people – primarily children – who became ill in an outbreak in South Wales caused by E. coli O157:H7 in September 2005. The outbreak was traced to the consumption of cooked meats provided to schools by John Tudor & Son, a catering butcher business. A packaging machine at the business, used for both raw and cooked meats, was identified as the probable source of contamination – where E. coli O157:H7 was most likely transferred from raw meat to cooked meat that was then distributed to four authorities in South Wales for their school meal programs. The 2005 outbreak was the largest caused by E. coli O157:H7 in Wales and the second largest in the United Kingdom to date; ultimately 31 people were admitted to hospital and, tragically, Mason Jones died.

    A public inquiry into the outbreak determined that William Tudor, the proprietor of John Tudor & Son, had a significant disregard for food safety and thus for the health of people who consumed meats produced and distributed by his business. The inquiry heard that there had been serious, and repeated, breaches of federal food safety regulations at the catering butcher business. William Tudor had failed to ensure that critical procedures, such as cleaning and the separation of raw and cooked meats, were carried out effectively. He also falsified certain records that were an important part of food safety practice and deceived Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) on issues such as the use of the packaging machine. The business’s Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan was also found to be poorly designed, inaccurate and misleading.

    Although foodborne illness may not always be completely preventable, my food safety culture colleague Chris Griffith concluded that the risk of a business causing foodborne illness is, to a large extent, a consequence of its own activities (and its auditors and inspectors).

    In Sept. 2006, 199 people were sickened and at least three died from E. coli O157:H7 in bagged spinach produced by Earthbound Farms of California. Samples of river water, wild pig feces, and cattle feces tested positive for the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7, and infected feces of nearby grass-fed cattle were found on one of the four fields where the contaminated spinach was grown, under organic production standards, in Salinas Valley. There was no verification that farmers and others in the farm-to-fork food safety system were seriously adapting to the messages about risk and the numbers of sick people, and then translating such information into behavioral changes that enhanced front-line food safety practices, especially in production fields rather than just processing facilities.

    On June 28, 2007 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement warning consumers not to eat Veggie Booty snack food because it had been linked to an outbreak of salmonella.

    In July the FDA found Salmonella Wandsworth in the snacks, reconfirming Veggie Booty was the source of the outbreak, after the Minnesota Agricultural Lab had already backed up the epidemiologic evidence with laboratory testing. At the same time, they advised consumers not to eat another product from the same company, Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks, because they might be contaminated as well. Preliminary investigations suggested the seasoning mix might have been the actual source of contamination. The company said the seasoning ingredients came from China, shifting the blame to a country which had failed quality and safety standards for nearly one fifth of their products at the time. A total of 23 states were affected and 69 people became sick.

    The plant that made Veggie Booty had received a rating of “excellent” from the American Institute of Baking, raising questions about the efficacy of auditors, which did not extend to ingredient suppliers.

    In August 2008, Listeria monocytogenes-contaminated deli meats produced by Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. of Canada caused 57 illnesses and ultimately resulting in 23 deaths. A panel of international food safety experts convened by Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. to investigate the source of the deli meat contamination determined that the most probable contamination source was commercial meat slicers that, despite cleaning according to the manufacturer’s instructions, had meat residue trapped deep inside the slicing mechanisms. The meat residue provided a reservoir and breeding ground for L. monocytogenes. An independent investigative review commissioned by the Canadian federal government provided 57 recommendations to prevent similar outbreaks in the future, reflecting the broad findings of the review: that the focus on food safety was insufficient among senior management at both the company and the various government organizations involved before and during the outbreak; that insufficient planning had been undertaken to be prepared for a potential outbreak; and that those involved lacked a sense of urgency at the outset of the outbreak.

    The plant linked to the outbreak received satisfactory marks for complying with federal regulatory requirements. Employees consistently addressed instances of non-compliance when they were identified. The plant’s management maintained all required records, ensured that staff training took place, and ensured the established quality assurance program was followed. At all plants, the company conducted environmental testing that went beyond regulatory requirements. Prior to the outbreak, Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. conducted more than 3,000 environmental tests annually at the implicated plant and tested products monthly. Although no product tests revealed the presence of Listeria spp., a number of environmental samples detected the bacteria in the months before the public was alerted in August to possible contamination. However, the company failed to recognize and identify the underlying cause of a sporadic yet persistent pattern of environmental test results that were positive for Listeria spp. and was not obliged to report the results.

    In January 2009, Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) was linked to a growing outbreak across the U.S. caused by Salmonella serotype Typhimurium. On January 9, 2009, the outbreak strain was isolated by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture from an unopened container of King Nut peanut butter – a product manufactured solely by PCA at its facility in Blakely, Georgia. In the ensuing weeks, all peanuts and peanut products processed at Blakely plant since January 1, 2007 were recalled. This included over 3,900 peanut butter and other peanut-containing products from more than 350 companies. PCA supplied peanuts, peanut butter, peanut meal and peanut paste to food processors for use in a wide range of products from cookies, snacks and ice cream to dog treats; to institutions such as hospitals, schools and nursing homes; and directly to consumers through discount retail outlets such as dollar stores. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 691 people were sickened and nine died across 46 U.S. states and in Canada.

    Moss and Martin reported in the N.Y. Times that an auditor with the American Institute of baking, based in Manhattan, Kansas, was responsible for evaluating the safety of products produced by PCA. The peanut company knew in advance when the auditors were arriving.

    “The overall food safety level of this facility was considered to be: SUPERIOR,” the auditor concluded in his March 27, 2008, report for AIB. A copy of the audit was obtained by The New York Times.

    AIB was not alone in missing the trouble at the Peanut Corporation plant in Blakely, Ga. State inspectors also found only minor problems, while a federal team last month uncovered a number of alarming signs, as well as testing records from the company itself that showed salmonella in its products as far back as June 2007.

    Nestlé twice inspected PCA plants and chose not to take on PCA as a supplier because it didn't meet Nestlé's food-safety standards, according to Nestlé's audit reports in 2002 and 2006.

    “Nestlé audited the Blakely plant in 2002 and rejected it as a supplier. Nestlé's audit report said the plant needed a "better understanding of the concept of deep cleaning" and failed to adequately separate unroasted raw peanuts from roasted ones. Having them in the same area could allow bacteria on raw nuts to contaminate roasted ones, a risk known as cross-contamination. The plant wasn't even close to Nestlé's standards, auditor Richard Hutson said in an interview. Hutson, who now heads quality assurance for several Nestlé divisions, said he shared his concerns with PCA officials at the time, but "they didn't pursue it" further with Nestlé, he says.”

    Kellogg CEO David Mackay testified at a congressional hearing that PCA had been audited by AIB, "the most commonly used auditor in the U.S."

    Salmonella in DeCoster eggs in 2010 lead to 2,000 illnesses and the recall of 500 million eggs. They received a superior rating prior to the outbreak from AIB.

    That’s a long-winded way of saying, the system of third-party audits can work, but when it fails, it fails spectacularly.

    William Neuman of the New York Times reports today the nationwide listeria outbreak that has killed 25 people who ate tainted cantaloupe was probably caused by unsanitary conditions in the packing shed of the Colorado farm where the melons were grown.

    Government investigators said that workers had tramped through pools of water where listeria was likely to grow, tracking the deadly bacteria around the shed, which was operated by Jensen Farms, in Granada, Colo. The pathogen was found on a conveyor belt for carrying cantaloupes, a melon drying area and a floor drain, among other places.

    This is the part that should give no consumer any confidence:

    The farm had passed a food safety audit by an outside contractor just days before the outbreak began. Eric Jensen, a member of the family that runs the farm, said in an e-mail that the auditor had given the packing plant a score of 96 points out of 100.

    FDA officials did not criticize the auditor directly. But Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods, said the agency intended to establish standards for how auditors should be trained and how audits should be conducted.

    The definition of crazy is doing more of the same and expecting a different result: more training will not fix these endemic food safety problems.

    Jensen Farms, run by Mr. Jensen and his brother Ryan, had recently acquired a set of used machinery to upgrade the way it washed and dried its cantaloupes. The equipment had been used to clean potatoes and was not intended for use with cantaloupes, officials said. They said the equipment was corroded in places and built in a way that made it difficult to clean and sanitize.

    An area used to dry the melons included a cloth cover that could easily have harbored the bacteria, according to a person who discussed the operation with the Jensens.

    Officials also said that the cantaloupes had not been adequately cooled before they were placed in refrigerated storage, which could have caused condensation to form on the fruit, creating hospitable conditions for listeria. The bacteria grow well in wet or damp conditions and can also thrive in cold.

    Jensen Farms hired an auditor called Primus Labs, based in California, to inspect its facility. Primus gave the job to a subcontractor, Bio Food Safety, which is based in Texas. Jensen and Primus declined to provide a copy of the audit report.
    Robert Stovicek, the president of PrimusLabs, said his company had reviewed the audit and found no problems in how it was conducted or in the auditor’s conclusions.

    “We thought he did a pretty good job,” Mr. Stovicek said. He said the auditor, James M. DiIorio, has been doing audits for the company since March.

    He said that Mr. DiIorio had received two one-week training courses as part of his preparation and had also gone on audits with other auditors.

    Asked how Mr. DiIorio could have given high marks to a facility that the F.D.A. described as a breeding ground for listeria, Mr. Stovicek said, “There’s lots of variations as to how people interpret unsanitary conditions.”

    Trevor V. Suslow, a professor of food safety at the University of California, Davis, said auditors may give farmers, processors and retailers a false sense of security.

    “There needs to be training, certification and auditing of the auditors,” he said.

    If third-party auditors and inspectors are part of the food safety solution, then what can be improved? Third-party audits are only one performance indicator but need to be supplemented with microbial testing, second-party audits of suppliers and the in-house capacity to meaningfully assess the results of audits and inspections. Any and all suppliers should be a key focus.

    Your rating: None (9 votes)
    Bookmark and Share