All these stories about local health code violations rarely get to the real issues – what is a critical violation, how is it defined, who decides and why is food safety training so apparently ineffective?

Health inspectors nailed at least 1,900 area restaurants and food vendors — including the swanky Palm and Georgia Brown's -- for violations ranging from rat infestations to "slime"-covered water spigots during a three-month period, according to health department records obtained by The Washington Examiner.

Health inspectors in Virginia, Maryland and the District closed at least 116 area food establishments as a result of major health code infractions.

But hundreds of other restaurants were allowed to remain open, despite racking up critical violations such as expired food and preparing dishes with open wounds. All the violations occurred between Nov. 1 and Feb. 1.

A health inspector observed 11 critical health code violations at Gordon Biersch, which tied Georgia Brown's for the most among D.C. restaurants during one inspection.

A hand-written report described one barehanded cook "preparing desserts with cuts/sores on fingers," and said employees were cleaning dining utensils and dishes with dirty rags between servings, and using the same pair of tongs to handle cooked and raw food.

And in Virginia, Alexandria's upscale Brabo by Robert Wiedmaier was cited for 10 critical health code violations during one inspection.

However, Brabo owner and Executive Chef Wiedmaier said the violations -- which included kitchen employees drinking from uncovered containers and handling toasted bread with bare hands -- did not endanger customers' health, and the use of the word "critical" was misleading.

"No one's ever been sick here," he said. "I run clean, professional restaurants, and I pride myself on how people see my kitchens."

How would he know? He wouldn’t.

It’s a mystery, how various health agencies decide when to issue public warnings about particular food products.

On Wednesday, Ontario health officials announced they were investigating two cases of listeriosis that appear to be linked to salami recalled from stores in Ontario and Quebec about three months ago.

The salami was sold by Siena Foods based in Toronto and was voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer on Dec. 21, 2009, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Wednesday. The best before date on the packaged meat is May 4, 2010.

Last night, CFIA and Siena Foods Ltd. warned the public not to consume certain Siena brand Prosciutto Cotto Cooked Ham below because it may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The affected product Siena brand Prosciutto Cotto Cooked Ham, was sold to delicatessens, grocery and speciality food stores in large wholesale packages for further slicing bearing Best Before dates of March 8 and March 22, 2010.

The affected product would have been sold to consumers after January 11, 2010. However, the original brand and/or best before dates may not have been transferred at the deli counters to consumer packages. Persons who may have purchased cooked ham after January 11, 2010 and do not know original brand and code are advised to check with their retailer or supplier to determine if they have the affected product.

So much for traceability.

This recall is based on positive test results for Listeria monocytogenes in product samples and CFIA's investigation of these findings.

The CFIA is aware of reported listeriosis illness in Ontario and is collaborating with the Province of Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada to investigate these illnesses. At this time, no confirmed linkage has been made between the subject recalled products and the reported illnesses.

That’s CFIA-speak for ‘we haven’t found the same Listeria in an unopened package. But we found enough links to go public and cover ourselves.’

I hate myself for being able to interpret CFIA-speak.

The Marriage Ref is a terrible show, even with A-lister guests Madonna, Larry David and Ricky Gervais, some of my personal favorites.

The scene of the couple sharing pretty much everything with a giant salmonella-shedding iguana brought no complaints, and while Entertainment Weekly has already have called the episode much better than the previous, it still sucked.
 

Kevin Allen (right, pretty much as shown), an assistant professor of food microbiology at the University of British Columbia who used to focus on perfecting his hockey skills through food microbiology graduate education but has more recently shifted his focus to preventing foodborne illness, writes:

As details of the Salmonella enterica serovar Tennessee contamination of hydrolysed vegetable protein (HVP) recall associated with Basic Foods Inc. (BFI), Nevada unravel, it is clear that many issues have played a role in this escalating and pervasive recall.

The finding of S. Tennessee on processing equipment at the BFI production facility demonstrates serious deficiencies in their sanitation program; the delay in reporting and back-dating of the recall show a lack of proper risk communication and management; and the continued manufacture and shipping of potentially contaminated HVP product to food producers shows a serious lack of risk-based decision making. Together, this has the potential to result in a large number of continued recalls and smacks similar to the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) recall in which S. Tennessee contaminated peanut products (2008) led to over 4,500 affected food products.

In both recalls, there appears to be a lack of responsibility associated with the food producers using these contaminated products. Because traditional microbiological testing requires highly-skilled laboratory technicians and an abundance of laboratory equipment, cost-cutting measures have routinely focused on decreased in-house testing of raw materials. Rather than microbiologically verifying the quality of individual raw materials which, admittedly, is a time-consuming process, food producers have increasingly relied on the vendor’s provision of a certificate of analysis stating that the product is microbiologically safe. In theory, this process of relying on vendor (i.e. BFI, PCA) assurances of microbiological acceptability should work providing that the vendor is producing the product hygienically and subsequently testing it appropriately. However, based on these two examples alone, food producers need to start verifying the microbiological quality of their raw materials, and stop relying on vendor’s assurances.

A food producer who used HVP in a product should be able look back at that lot to see that yes, our company used it, we tested it prior to use and found no pathogen contamination. Based on this approach, all production lots that were associated with production would also be tested and shown pathogen-free prior to retail distribution. However, cost-cutting, production requirements, and a simple willingness to assume microbiological safety of raw materials based on third-party assurances have once again severely impacted the food industry in a negative manner. Maybe it’s time food producers go back to the basics, and realize that microbiological testing of raw materials is not a waste of time and money, but rather a critical step in providing microbiologically safe foods to the public.