62 sickened: Raw eggs a ‘hazardous substance’ Company fined over Salmonella outbreak in Australia

Australia still has an egg problem.

egg.farmI agreed to take on the role of food safety overseer at the Nov. 13, 2015 (ice) hockey annual banquet. Mainly because I didn’t want to see any of the kids I coach or parents get sick from microbiologically stupid Aussie traditions like using raw eggs in aioli or mayonnaise.

A company at the centre of a massive Melbourne Cup Day salmonella outbreak has been found guilty of failing in food safety standards, a court has heard.

It comes as the partner of a woman who died after contracting the infection during the outbreak has called for raw eggs to be “declared a hazardous substance.”

The Brisbane Magistrates Court yesterday heard the bacteria was contained in one or some of the 20 raw eggs used to make five batches of mayonnaise by Piccalilli Catering in November 4, 2013.

The condiment was then used as a potato salad dressing, which was then sold to 14 separate Melbourne Cup Day functions in southeast Queensland, including one for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Magistrate Noel Noonan said despite expert evidence, “exactly how the salmonella got into the mayonnaise is unclear.” However, he added it was most likely through “horizontal transmission”, where salmonella is transferred from the shell into the egg.

The court heard 62 people became ill from eating the salad, including one woman who died from heart complications after contracting the infection at one of the functions.

Magistrate Noonan found the company had failed to pass on warnings regarding the quality of the eggs in questions, nor had they performed adequate checks on the same products.

However, he described the company as a “good corporate citizen” that “cooperated extensively with authorities” during the investigation.

It has also retained a five-star food safety rating from the local council.

(Which means the voluntary ratings in Brisbane are window-dressing).

Delish Foods owner Helen Grace expressed concern raw eggs were still allowed in food preparation.

“Rather than prosecuting a small business that followed all the rules, we believe the authorities should move to ban the use of raw eggs by caterers, restaurants and cafes, to ensure this kind of tragedy never happens again,” the statement read.

A table of Australian egg outbreaks is available at https://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/raw-egg-related-outbreaks-australia-10-9-15.xlsx

Crackdown on food safety in Iran

Hassan Qazizadeh Hashemi, who was speaking on the sidelines of a conference to mark World Food Day, said that no serious reform has taken place in the food sector over the last year, Tasnim reported.

iran-amputation-3_2464258bWorld Food Day is observed globally on October 16.

“What embarrasses us is that why we cannot spot all food safety violators. Or when we ban some unhealthy products, why do they return into market?” Qazizadeh Hashemi said, adding that the problem is in the type of the punishment which has failed so far.

“We are determined not to allow [anybody] to play with people’s health at all and we take measure against [law violators] but we need judicial system as well as executive power to support us,” he stressed.

Go to jail. Go directly to jail

Ron Doering, counsel in the Ottawa offices of Gowlings, and a past president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, writes in his monthly Food in Canada column:           

Chance_go_to_jailAfter warrants were issued for their arrest, the two food company executives turned themselves in to the police and then they were led into the court for their arraignment in shackles.

The Jensen brothers faced a possible six years in jail for the misdemeanor of failing to ensure the quality and safety of the food product they were selling. They did not go to jail primarily because they pled guilty. Last January they were sentenced to six months home detention and five years probation, and ordered to pay $150,000 in restitution.

The evidence was clear: neither of the corporate executives had any idea that their food product was adulterated or that they had done anything wrong. What’s going on here?

In this and several other recent cases, the United States Department of Justice has made it clear that it has adopted a new enforcement policy to aggressively use criminal prosecution against food company executives. Citing the serious public health consequences of foodborne illness, with 48 million Americans sickened every year and an estimated 3,000 deaths, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery has publicly warned corporate officers that they were now going to be held personally and criminally responsible if their companies failed to adequately control the quality of their food products. Delery has emphasized that introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce is a strict liability offence, meaning a company violates the law when it distributes an adulterated food whether or not it intended to do so.

In adopting this new aggressive policy the prosecutors have resurrected the old and mostly dormant 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v Park, which held that corporate executives could be prosecuted criminally even for unintended violations of food laws by their companies. “This apparent revival of the Park Doctrine is a huge concern for the industry” asserts U.S. food law attorneys McGuireWoods.

This dramatic change in U.S. food law is evident in many recent cases. For example, in 2014 Iowa egg company executives pled guilty in a deal that included prison time and millions of dollars in fines after an outbreak that had sickened almost 2,000 people in 2010. In May 2015, arising from a tainted peanut butter recall in 2006, prosecutors extracted a settlement with the food giant ConAgra Foods that included a fine of $11.2 million, the highest criminal fine in U.S. food safety history.

This rising threat of criminal prosecution for food industry executives is real and has not gone unnoticed by food companies and their lawyers. Washington lawyer Gary Jay Kushner, a partner with Hogan Lovells and one of America’s leading food law lawyers, told me recently that “this is a serious development for food company executives. We’re seeing this increasing trend in a lot of cases.”

The most recent case that has garnered so much media attention involves the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) in which an investigation revealed that its adulterated product had led to over 700 reported infections and at least nine deaths. After a six-week trial, a federal jury found PCA president Stewart Parnell and two other company executives guilty of violating several food safety laws and obstruction of justice. Because company employees falsified lab results and made several false and misleading statements to FDA investigators, prosecutors are seeking life sentences for PCA executives.

Criminal prosecution of company executives is not new in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency regularly brings charges in the criminal courts. What we haven’t seen yet in this country is major prosecutions of executives after recalls or prosecutors seeking jail terms for company executives who were unaware of any violation, though I know that this has been seriously considered in at least a couple of instances.

There is also another important distinction between Canada and the U.S. We have a longstanding, if narrowly defined, defence of due diligence in cases of strict liability offences; a defence that deserves to be better known, and the subject of next month’s column.

People are sick: Snap peas recalled in Canada due to Cyclospora

No word on whether this is related to the 500 or so people sickened by Cyclospora that was thought to be Mexican cilantro, no word on how many are sick, no word on where the snap peas originated, but Canadians are busy with an election.

bob.doug.mckenzie.strange.brew.1980The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says that Costco Wholesale Canada Inc. is voluntarily recalling Alpine Fresh brand Snap Peas from the marketplace due to possible Cyclospora contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

The product has been sold from Costco locations across Ontario.

This recall was triggered by findings by CFIA during its investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product.

Thanks for that info. And now this. (Chapman may have something to say about the cameras).

15 sick with Salmonella from raw frozen chicken thingies

My friend the postie, (as in works for the post office, to speak Australian just add ie to everything) is going to become a grey nomad (that’s slang for retired people who drive around Australia in their caravans).

barber.foodsHe was showing me his new ride, and how he’s going to cook a lot in a microwave, so I said I’d give him a tip-sensitive digital thermometer.

Here’s why:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that since the last update on July 29, 2015, six more ill people were reported from five states.

A total of 15 people infected with the outbreak strains of Salmonella Enteritidis were reported from seven states. The number of ill people reported from each state was as follows: Connecticut (1), Illinois (2), Minnesota (8), New Hampshire (1), New York (1), Oklahoma (1), and Wisconsin (1).

Illness onset dates ranged from April 5, 2015 to July 27, 2015. Ill people ranged in age from 4 years to 82, with a median age of 32, and 60% were female. Among 10 people with available information, 4 (40%) were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported.

As we found back in 2007,  when preparing frozen foods, adolescents are less likely than adults to wash their hands and are more susceptible to cross-contaminating raw foods while cooking.

“While half of the adults we observed washed their hands after touching raw chicken, none of the adolescents did,” said Casey Jacob, a food safety research assistant at Kansaas State. “The non-existent hand washing rate, combined with certain age-specific behaviors like hair flipping and scratching in a variety of areas, could lead directly to instances of cross-contamination compared to the adults.”

Food safety isn’t simple, and instructions for safe handling of frozen chicken entrees or strips are rarely followed by consumers despite their best intentions, said Doug Powell, K-State associate professor of food safety who led the study.

As the number and type of convenience meal solutions increases — check out the frozen food section of a local supermarket — the researchers found a need to understand how both adults and adolescents are preparing these products and what can be done to enhance the safety of frozen foods.

In 2007, K-State researchers developed a novel video capture system to observe the food preparation practices of 41 consumers – 21 primary meal preparers and 20 adolescents – in a mock domestic kitchen using frozen, uncooked, commercially available breaded chicken products. The researchers wanted to determine actual food handling behavior of these two groups in relation to safe food handling practices and instructions provided on product labels. Self-report surveys were used to determine whether differences exist between consumers’ reported food handling practices and observed behavior.

The research appeared in the November 2009 issue of the British Food Journal. In addition to Jacob and Powell, the authors were: Sarah DeDonder, K-State doctoral student in pathobiology; Brae Surgeoner, Powell’s former graduate student; Benjamin Chapman, an assistant professor at North Carolina State University and Powell’s former graduate student; and Randall Phebus, K-State professor of animal science and industry.

Beyond the discrepancy between adult and adolescent food safety practices, the researchers also found that even when provided with instructions, food preparers don’t follow them. They may not have even seen them or they assume they know what to do.

“Our results suggest that while labels might contain correct risk-reduction steps, food manufacturers have to make that information as compelling as possible or it will be ignored,” Chapman said.

They also found that observational research using discreet video recording is far more accurate than self-reported surveys. For example, while almost all of the primary meal preparers reported washing hands after every instance in which they touched raw poultry, only half were observed washing hands correctly after handling chicken products in the study.

Powell said that future work will examine the effectiveness of different food safety labels, messages and delivery mechanisms on consumer behavior in their home kitchens.

 Self-reported and observed behavior of primary meal preparers and adolescents during preparation of frozen, uncooked, breaded chicken products

01.nov.09

British Food Journal, Vol 111, Issue 9, p 915-929

Sarah DeDonder, Casey J. Jacob, Brae V. Surgeoner, Benjamin Chapman, Randall Phebus, Douglas A. Powell

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=6146E6AFABCC349C376B7E55A3866D4A?contentType=Article&contentId=1811820

Abstract:

Purpose – The purpose of the present study was to observe the preparation practices of both adult and young consumers using frozen, uncooked, breaded chicken products, which were previously involved in outbreaks linked to consumer mishandling. The study also sought to observe behaviors of adolescents as home food preparers. Finally, the study aimed to compare food handler behaviors with those prescribed on product labels.

Design/methodology/approach – The study sought, through video observation and self-report surveys, to determine if differences exist between consumers’ intent and actual behavior.

Findings – A survey study of consumer reactions to safe food-handling labels on raw meat and poultry products suggested that instructions for safe handling found on labels had only limited influence on consumer practices. The labels studied by these researchers were found on the packaging of chicken products examined in the current study alongside step-by-step cooking instructions. Observational techniques, as mentioned above, provide a different perception of consumer behaviors.

Originality/value – This paper finds areas that have not been studied in previous observational research and is an excellent addition to existing literature.

Hong Kong pet owners warned after tests find Salmonella

Hong Kong animal owners are being warned against frozen or raw pet food after salmonella was found in some test samples.

dog_vomitThe Consumer Council said it found salmonella in three of 17 samples during random tests on pet food.

These came from two Australian brands  – Big Dog and Doctor B’s.

Michael Hui, chairman of the council’s publicity and community relations committee, said pets infected with salmonella could suffer diarrhea, vomiting and fever.

Their owners may be vulnerable to infection when exposed to contaminated food containers and feces.

Hong Kong does not regulate pet food quality and it has no mechanism for product recalls.

Careful with barf: Queensland woman sues Woolworths over vomit slip

A Queensland woman is suing Woolworths for $750,000 after she slipped on a puddle of an employee’s vomit near the entrance of the Ipswich store.

vomit_here_by_seedpix_at_flickrBefore the fall Jennifer Hunt said she was a fit woman who cared for her husband, but the Courier Mail reports she now relies on her daughter to be her carer.

“I’d just walked in. I didn’t even see it. I just went down,” she said.

“At first I thought it was orange juice, but then I smelt it and thought ‘This is somebody’s vomit’.”

The claim states Mrs Hunt injured her lower back, left hip, her knees and her left foot in the fall in November 30, 2012.

The supermarket chain has disputed the extent of her injuries.

Hawaiian bakery sold food after being ordered to close for food safety violations

A popular Waialua bakery has been fined $22,000 for allegedly selling food after it was ordered to close down by the Health Department and for failing to fix multiple food safety violations.

Paalaa Kai BakeryThe state closed down the Paalaa Kai Bakery on Oct. 6, after several inspections found the establishment had failed to fix refrigeration problems.

The Health Department issued a red “closed” placard to the bakery, the first since the state launched a new eatery inspection program last year.

The bakery, located at 66-945 Kaukonahua Rd., might request a hearing to contest the fine. No one answered the phone at the bakery Tuesday.