Tag Archives: Produce

Rhetoric reigns: US farmers question produce safety rules

Posted on by
Reply

Fresh produce continues to be the source of too many people barfing. Part of the solution is supposed to more government oversight of fresh produce production in the U.S., part of the Food Safety Modernization Act. But even if money is available to fund the activities, farm groups across the country are registering their disproval.

According to Lancaster Online, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates the new regulations could cost farmers more than $459 cantaloupe.salmonellamillion a year to implement.

But, says the FDA, they would prevent 1.75 million new cases of foodborne illnesses a year, saving $1.04 billion in associated costs.

And while most people at a recent Pennsylvania meeting agreed that food safety is a top priority, they said that when it comes to the proposed produce rule, the “devil is in the details.”

Lee Showalter, food safety manager for Rice Fruit Co. in Gardners, questioned what impact the produce rule would have on fruit growers, who are part of a low-risk industry.

No foodborne illness outbreaks have been attributed to tree fruit, he said.

“There is no difference in the provision when it comes to varying risks between produce,” Showalter said.

Frequent testing of water, which FDA claims is needed because it can carry foodborne illness pathogens, could be costly because many fruit growers depend on multiple water sources for their orchards, he said.

Water treatment also could create problems with applying sprays to control disease and insects, according to Showalter.

Philly.com reports that as the nation’s farmers enter a new growing season two years after 33 people died and 147 people were sickened in 28 states after eating listeria-infested cantaloupe from a Colorado farm, the produce industry has effectively delayed implementation of a law intended to improve food safety.

The United Fresh Produce Association, which describes itself as “industry’s leading trade association committed to driving the growth and success of produce companies and their partners” spearheaded the push for more time to comment on a pair of FDA rules toughening safety standards for farms and processors.

Whenever the federal legislation is enacted, cantaloupe growers can expect super special attention.

GPB News reports that FDA recently put growers and industry groups on notice to expect them.

The FDA’s focus on cantaloupe safety comes after two outbreaks of listeria and salmonella contamination in the last few years made hundreds of people ill and killed dozens.

A new coalition of cantaloupe producers from Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina is one of the industry’s responses to those outbreaks. cantaloupe.washThe group’s leader said it also reflects a desire among producers to improve safety.

 “They felt a need to identify how they could improve and enhance the confidence of the consumer in the cantaloupe product,” said Charles Hall, executive director of the ECGA. “We were seeing a trend of consumption going down somewhat.”

Hall said members of the group agree to undergo an initial food-safety audit — called a Global Food Safety Initiative audit — and then a later unannounced one.

Others argue that if FDA is going to up requirements, then FDA needs to up it’s own game.

For example, as reported in The Packer, Bedner Growers Inc., Delray Beach, Fla., voluntarily recalled 1,610 boxes of fresh green bell peppers because they were potentially contaminated with salmonella.

Bedner harvested and shipped the peppers March 25. They are marked with the lot code 102 on the side of each box, according to an April 26 news release from the company.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the recall and no other

Bedner officials initiated the recall within hours of receiving notification from the Food and Drug Administration “late on April 25,” the release said.

The FDA told company officials a single sample taken April 4 had tested positive for salmonella. Government officials took the sample before the produce reached a retail outlet, but they did not inform Bedner Growers of the sample test until April 25.

New York: Baldor Specialty Foods’ ahead of the curve on specialty produce and food safety

Posted on by
1

Michael Muzyk seems to have this food safety and global trade thing sorta worked out.

“I don’t care where it’s produced, if it doesn’t fit Baldor’s criteria for food safety, it doesn’t come in our door. We’ve even seen product refused entry into the U.S. because the wooden pallet wasn’t treated Michael-Muzykfor bugs. This is a new ballgame, and one that in which you must be highly specialized.”

Last year Baldor, according to The Produce News, installed its own laboratory for food safety. As opposed to catching and releasing goods, the company is testing items in-house before they go into its processing department.

“This lab was a major expense, but one we felt was necessary,” said Mr. Muzyk. “And as with all of our food-safety initiatives, we aim to stay on the cutting edge. This process is in addition to our detector that picks up any potential threats or risks to the product that we handle.”

Baldor Specialty Foods in the Bronx, NY, sources product around the globe but seems to take food safety seriously.

Now go market it at retail so mere consumers can make the safe choice.

Produce primary source of US foodborne illness

Posted on by
1

The folks who grow lettuce and spinach in California would make a great comedy act: if only so many people didn’t get severely sick.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has confirmed what some of us have been saying for 15 years: fresh produce is the biggest source of lettuce.tomato.skullfoodborne illness in the U.S.

This isn’t surprising: produce is fresh, not cooked, so there is ample opportunity for cross-contamination and pathogen transfer, such as norovirus.

This is nothing new, and nothing to be scared of.

It means that food safety starts on the farm, and goes all the way through to the fork.

I don’t know what it is about moral outrage in the U.S. but it was rampant when we were there for the past two months and it seems like every group out there feels a higher duty to dictate to the masses.

So it was predictable when the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement  said with a straight face today, that produce food safety is a “shared responsibility” and that “we believe this program is the best model for producing safe food because it establishes a culture of food safety on the farm.”

No evidence was offered to substantiate such a claim; but they got all the groovy words in their PR.

For the number of outbreaks, for the number of severely ill and dead, for the decade of inaction, you don’t get to lecture Americans about how it’s a shared responsibility.

Take care of your own stuff, admit when California leafy greens are involved in outbreaks instead of stalling and obstructing, and if you’re program is so great, publish all test results and market food safety at retail.

Otherwise, save the morality lectures and go back to growing crops, making money, and try not to make people barf.

A table of leafy green outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/leafy-greens-related-outbreaks.

The abstract of the CDC report is below:

Each year, >9 million foodborne illnesses are estimated to be caused by major pathogens acquired in the United States. Preventing these illnesses is challenging because resources are limited and linking TheMasterOscarPageindividual illnesses to a particular food is rarely possible except during an outbreak. We developed a method of attributing illnesses to food commodities that uses data from outbreaks associated with both simple and complex foods. Using data from outbreak-associated illnesses for 1998–2008, we estimated annual US foodborne illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths attributable to each of 17 food commodities. We attributed 46% of illnesses to produce and found that more deaths were attributed to poultry than to any other commodity. To the extent that these estimates reflect the commodities causing all foodborne illness, they indicate that efforts are particularly needed to prevent contamination of produce and poultry. Methods to incorporate data from other sources are needed to improve attribution estimates for some commodities and agents.

Age of Aquarius: Trade, food safety, always intertwined

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t like year-end reviews.

It’s an artificial creation and food safety happens day-in-day-out.

Sure I’ll engage in some sacrifice on the winter solstice (if Chapman is dumb enough to be around) and dance naked under the setting sun of the summer solstice, but that’s it.

However The Packer’s most-viewed stories list of 2012 seemed particularly apt.

Food safety is about trade. That’s why the Mexico/Florida tomato war was the #1 most viewed story.

But #2-4 were actually about food safety:

• cantaloupe outbreak shakes up industry, leading to California’s new certification push;

• tainted mangoes cause widespread illness; and,

• sprout illnesses force national chains into menu changes and two new alliances.

Good food safety is good business. Apparently it’s a new revelation.

Food safety crisis management for fresh produce

Posted on by
Reply

In 2008, U.S. tomato growers, wholesalers, and retailers in Florida lost an estimated $250 million when they could not sell their product after an investigation of a possible Salmonella spp., outbreak linked to their product resulting in a national health advisory. Consumer confidence in the safety of tomato products eroded, while food safety practices on farms and throughout the supply chain were called into question. Other producers were also affected by this health advisory and found themselves answering questions about growing conditions, the safety of inputs (including water) handling and distribution of products.

That’s what Chapman told the Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable and Farm Market Expo in December 2011, based on work he did along with Audrey Kreske and me, and which has now been revised and re-edited for The Grower, an Ontario-based trade publication.

Recent fresh produce-related outbreaks have created an environment where commodity groups and producers are even more concerned about managing the fallout after a foodborne incident.
Crisis management in the food industry has four phases:

• Prevention: Employing a good food safety culture, including staying current on risk factors.

• Preparation: Proactively planning for a problem and monitoring public discussion risk.

• Management: Implementing the plan using multiple messages and media.

• Recovery: Reassessing risk exposure and telling the story of changes.

Prevention

Food safety culture is how an organization or group approaches food safety risks, in thought and in behavior, and is a component of a larger organizational culture. Creating a culture of food safety requires application of the best science with the best management and communication systems. Firm owners and operators need to know the risks associated with their products and how to manage those risks. Having technical staff in place to stay abreast of emerging food safety risks and conduct ongoing evaluations of procedures, supplier requirements and front-line staff practices provides a necessary foundation for a good food safety culture.

Preparation

Crises will happen. Companies who understand this, and are prepared to deal with them will survive. Those who are not risk losing their market – and often do. While proactively managing microbiological risks, organizations with a strong culture of food safety also anticipate that outbreaks of foodborne illness may occur despite the use of sound food safety systems. Industries strong in crisis management including, information sharing, monitoring and reactive crisis communication skills, can drastically reduce the impact of deleterious and harmful media if an outbreak arises (Jacob et al., 2011). Being prepared to speak openly speaking about risk reduction strategies and demonstrating risk management practices can reduce financial impacts and allow public trust to be regained quicker than if a firm/industry had not planned.

Management

An increasing number of consumers seek food safety information from Internet sources, including one in eight Canadian consumers and one in four American consumers. 
Following 2006 (E.coli O157 in spinach) and 2008 (Salmonella Saintpaul in Serrano peppers) news spread through the Internet in an unprecedented fashion. Producers, processors, retailers and regulators of agricultural commodities must now pay particular attention to evolving discussion and engage in the public discussion while the crisis is occurring. A firm or industry that is not forthcoming with information of who knew what, when, and what decisions were made sets itself up for loss of trust because media and Internet discussion goes towards these questions.
During a crisis it is necessary for a company or industry to talk about the science, discuss risks and tell an interested public about what is known, what is unknown and on what evidence decisions are made. Being available and understanding how media functions are also necessary skills for food industry members. Without recognizing deadlines or telling succinct stories of risk management, individuals risk the chance that others will fill the information vacuum with inaccurate information.

Recovery

A firm employing the best crisis management practices starts the recovery phase as soon as notification of a problem. Publicly, producers must address the problem, apologize to affected individuals; and, reach out to the media about risk-reduction changes. It is best to establish a dialogue with groups to demonstrate the organization’s openness and commitment to public safety and health. Internally a firm plans for reentry to the market, logistics and how new risk-management strategies will impact other business activities. If there was media attention around the crisis event, the one-year anniversary will often garner further coverage. An organization must be able to demonstrate that they have learned something/changed process in response and assess internally whether the same risks to public health exist by asking, “would we have the outbreak again today?”

Not just consumers: cross-contamination of viruses from kitchen knives and graters

Posted on by
1

Earlier this month, researchers led by Qing Wang from the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia, quantified in the journal Food and Environmental Virology just how easily viruses can be spread by cross-contamination from utensils such as knives and graters.

The leading cause of foodborne illness in the US is currently Norovirus, with produce and ready-to-eat foods being identified as the main food types responsible for outbreaks. Previous research has shown that the prime time for food contamination occurs during preparation close to the time when food will be consumed. Although virus transfer between hands, produce and food-contact surfaces is known to occur readily at this point, to date there is little data on the potential role of kitchen utensils used for food preparation in this cross-contamination.

In this study, the researchers looked at the transfer of the Hepatitis A virus and Norovirus between a range of fruit and vegetables and different kitchen knives or flat steel coarse graters. Tests were done with uncontaminated utensils on contaminated produce and contaminated utensils on uncontaminated produce. Results found that when using uncontaminated utensils, more than half of all knives and graters were contaminated after preparing the contaminated produce. Tests using a contaminated knife or grater very often resulted in contamination of the produce being cut or grated. In fact, after being used on one contaminated piece of produce, sterilized knives and graters were capable of cross-contaminating up to seven further pieces of produce that were chopped or grated afterwards.

As seen in previous studies, the level of contamination observed differed with produce used and type of virus. The authors suggest that the difference in the structure of produce surface may influence virus transfer as well as the binding affinities of the different viruses to produce. For example, the smooth surfaces of a honeydew melon transferred more Norovirus to knives than the rougher surface of a cantaloupe, but the opposite was observed for Hepatitis A virus.

This study demonstrates the ease with which viruses can transfer between produce and utensils using procedures commonly adopted in kitchens. This could pose a significant health risk. The authors conclude that “… great emphasis on utensils as virus vehicles should be placed, and it is important to provide knowledge and training for food workers and consumers to limit virus spread.”

This message – be careful in the kitchen – somehow got transmuted by the Produce Marketing Association to, when consumers prepare food it’s possible that their knives may be contaminated and that, “Clearly consumers have a role to play in safe food handling. That’s why PMA has been a long-time supporter of the Partnership, helping to develop the free fruit and vegetable handling information for consumers.”

But the study didn’t distinguish between home kitchens and food service kitchens or even fresh-cut operations. Groups with a vested interest in blaming consumers for outbreaks of foodborne illness do this kind of rhetorical magic routinely.

Wang Q, Erickson, M, Ortega YR and Cannon JL. The fate of murin norovirus and Hepatitis A virus during preparation of fresh produce by cutting and grating. Food and Environmental Virology. DOI 10.1007/s12560-012-9099-4

Safe food by accident not design; time to adopt irradiation

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Holley, a professor in the department of food science at the University of Manitoba writes in the Winnipeg Free Press that Canadians who were alarmed by the recent outbreak of E. coli sickness from beef should know that pathogen contamination in processing plants cannot be prevented. If we really want to prevent outbreaks, we have to look at expanded use of irradiation.

Available data show little progress in resolving challenges associated with contaminated food either here or in the U.S. There is concern — because there is no strategy to implement interventions or ability to evaluate their effectiveness — that safe food in Canada is more by accident than by design.

The provinces and territories are finally establishing performance objectives limiting frequencies of poultry carcass contamination by Salmonella and Campylobacter. Unfortunately, compliance with these standards cannot be measured against changes in rates of human illness from poultry consumption because a yardstick does not exist. It is these kinds of well-intentioned but unco-ordinated programs that drain resources, spawn complacency and ultimately obstruct our ability to understand the root causes of the problems and fix them.

Food irradiation is the most intensively studied of all technologies used to process food. In spite of what its detractors may contend, evidence from over 100 years of study show it can effectively reduce pathogen contamination of foods at levels that do not create toxicity, affect its wholesomeness or nutritional adequacy.

Canadian approvals have been in place since the 1960s for treatment of potatoes, onions, wheat flour, spices and dry seasonings. Specific approvals for food irradiation exist in over 55 countries, including the EU.

In the U.S., irradiation of mangoes and a variety of produce, shrimp, poultry and red meat at specified doses is permitted and about seven to eight million kilograms of irradiated ground beef is consumed annually.

Irradiation of produce at low dose in international trade is gaining acceptance, largely because it replaces pesticide use for quarantine control of insects.

Obstacles to irradiation adoption include its availability, costs of the technology, and concern about public perception.

Irradiation will not hide incompetence in industry practice and electron beams do not generate radioactive waste. Slow adoption of food irradiation is mainly due to psychological and political barriers.

If poultry alone were irradiated to eliminate Campylobacter (the major cause of food-borne illness) and Salmonella, data show that food-borne illness in Canada would be reduced immediately by 25 per cent.

Concerns regarding expanded use of food irradiation require transparent consideration. However, it is clear that there is no need to reinvent studies to show its generic safety and efficacy.

Indeed, organic farmers should reconsider their opposition given the equal risk that an organic product might be involved in the next Salmonella recall. There is no room for complacency either; it is time to use food irradiation for our collective good.

Risk factors for microbial contamination in fruits and vegetables at the preharvest Level: A systematic review

Posted on by
Reply

An abstract from the current issue of Journal of Food Protection:

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of risk factors for contamination of fruits and vegetables with Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 at the preharvest level. Relevant studies were identified by searching six electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAB Abstracts, AGRIS, AGRICOLA, and FSTA, using the following thesaurus terms: L. monocytogenes, Salmonella, E. coli O157 AND fruit, vegetable. All search terms were exploded to find all related subheadings. To be eligible, studies had to be prospective controlled trials or observational studies at the preharvest level and had to show clear and sufficient information on the process in which the produce was contaminated. Of the 3,463 citations identified, 68 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Most of these studies were on leafy greens and tomatoes. Six studies assessed produce contamination with respect to animal host-related risk factors, and 20 studies assessed contamination with respect to pathogen characteristics. Sixty-two studies assessed the association between produce contamination and factors related to produce, water, and soil, as well as local ecological conditions of the production location. While evaluations of many risk factors for preharvest-level produce contamination have been reported, the quality assessment of the reviewed studies confirmed the existence of solid evidence for only some of them, including growing produce on clay-type soil, the application of contaminated or non-pH-stabilized manure, and the use of spray irrigation with contaminated water, with a particular risk of contamination on the lower leaf surface. In conclusion, synthesis of the reviewed studies suggests that reducing microbial contamination of irrigation water and soil are the most effective targets for the prevention and control of produce contamination. Furthermore, this review provides an inventory of the evaluated risk factors, including those requiring more research.

Journal of Food Protection®, Volume 75, Number 11, November 2012 , pp. 2055-2081(27)

Park, Sangshin; Szonyi, Barbara; Gautam, Raju; Nightingale, Kendra; Anciso, Juan; Ivanek, Renata

Retailer double talk on produce safety

Posted on by
Reply

My friend and Randy Bachman-inspired guitar player Roy Costa writes:

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.

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.

“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.

 

So what? Produce-safety testing program given reprieve

Posted on by
7

Policy requires tough choices, and rhetorical appeal.

Accuracy also helps.

According to an AP story, “the U.S. Agriculture Department grudgingly extended the life of the nation’s largest produce-safety testing program on Monday, just as the initiative was slated to be shut down.”

The largest produce testing programs are in industry. What’s more important is that the data be made public so taxpayers don’t have to pay what’s already been done.

“The tiny program samples thousands of high-risk fruits and vegetables for pathogens each year, and has found more than two dozen bacteria-laced examples that prompted recalls of lettuce, tomatoes and other foods from grocery stores.”

Seek and ye shall find. Did the program prevent any outbreaks? Probably not. That’s because preventing the bugs setting up shop is far more important, especially with fresh produce, than testing.

As food safety czar Mike Taylor said the other day, there’s so much more that goes into the safety of produce.