Yearly Archives: 2015

UK minister says cut food safety audits

Posted on by
1

George Eustice, DEFRA’s newly appointed Minister of State, told the British Meat Processors Association’s annual conference in London that  meat manufacturers – and food businesses at large – must be freed from the “burden” of audits.

Eustice argues the need for fewer audits was one of the key findings to come out of Professor Chris Elliott’s report into 2013 horsemeat scandal. By the end of 2015 the government hopes to have finalised a strategy that paves the way for fewer inspections from both retailers and government agencies.

audit.checklistBut could it backfire?

Consumer trust in food safety is at an all time low

Thanks to wholesale media coverage of some notable cases of food fraud and breaches of food safety, we are living in an age of major consumer scepticism. The public wants to see tighter regulations on the food industry and it’s easy to see how the call for reduced audits could be perceived as a step backwards, not forwards.

It’s a stance that’s difficult to begrudge. Little has been done to ratchet-up traceability and safety measures since horsegate.

One thing that most food businesses agree on is the need for food safety procedures to be more streamlined. Paper-based checks are easy to falsify, annoying to complete and time-consuming to review. Eustice appeared to recognise as much when he noted that a greater use of technology must be central to any plans to reduce the incidence of audits.

Any government strategy to remove unnecessary burdens from food businesses will be warmly received. But food businesses must remember their obligation of safety to the end consumer. Technology that offers cloud integration presents the opportunity for food businesses to share safety data with one another on an open platform, paving the way towards transparent food chains.

Inspections and audits are not synonymous with safety. Beyond sharing data amongst companies, share it with everyone – especially consumers.

Three years ago, a group of us came out with a paper we could all (mostly) agree with and got it published. The main points were:

  • food safety audits and inspections are a key component of the nation’s food safety system and their use will expand in the future, for both domestic and imported foodstuffs., but recent failures can be emotionally, physically and financially devastating to the victims and the businesses involved;
  • many outbreaks involve firms that have had their food production systems verified and received acceptable ratings from food safety auditors or government inspectors;
  • while inspectors and auditors play an active role in overseeing compliance, the burden for food safety lies primarily with food producers;
  • there are lots of limitations with audits and inspections, just like with restaurants inspections, but with an estimated 48 million sick each year in the U.S., the question should be, how best to improve food safety?
  • audit reports are only useful if the purchaser or food producer reviews the results, understands the risks addressed by the standards and makes risk-reduction decisions based on the results;
  • sunnybrook-auditorthere appears to be a disconnect between what auditors provide (a snapshot) and what buyers believe they are doing (a full verification or certification of product and process);
  • third-party audits are only one performance indicator and 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;
  • companies who blame the auditor or inspector for outbreaks of foodborne illness should also blame themselves;
  • assessing food-handling practices of staff through internal observations, externally-led evaluations, and audit and inspection results can provide indicators of a food safety culture; and,
  • the use of audits to help create, improve, and maintain a genuine food safety culture holds the most promise in preventing foodborne illness and safeguarding public health.

Audits and inspections are never enough: A critique to enhance food safety

30.aug.12

Food Control

D.A. Powell, S. Erdozain, C. Dodd, R. Costa, K. Morley, B.J. Chapman

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713512004409?v=s5

Abstract

Internal and external food safety audits are conducted to assess the safety and quality of food including on-farm production, manufacturing practices, sanitation, and hygiene. Some auditors are direct stakeholders that are employed by food establishments to conduct internal audits, while other auditors may represent the interests of a second-party purchaser or a third-party auditing agency. Some buyers conduct their own audits or additional testing, while some buyers trust the results of third-party audits or inspections. Third-party auditors, however, use various food safety audit standards and most do not have a vested interest in the products being sold. Audits are conducted under a proprietary standard, while food safety inspections are generally conducted within a legal framework. There have been many foodborne illness outbreaks linked to food processors that have passed third-party audits and inspections, raising questions about the utility of both. Supporters argue third-party audits are a way to ensure food safety in an era of dwindling economic resources. Critics contend that while external audits and inspections can be a valuable tool to help ensure safe food, such activities represent only a snapshot in time. This paper identifies limitations of food safety inspections and audits and provides recommendations for strengthening the system, based on developing a strong food safety culture, including risk-based verification steps, throughout the food safety system.

Take your sheep to McDonald’s?

Posted on by
Reply

Police stopped a driver in northern England this week who had a large sheep tucked in the back of his small Peugeot 206, and police were concerned it might constitute an “insecure load.”

sheep.carThe man said the sheep was from his farm and that he just wanted to take it out with him while he grabbed a burger at McDonald’s. “Some people take their dogs in their cars, I take my sheep,” he reportedly told the officers who pulled him over.

“He seemed fine to be honest — although he obviously felt a little sheepish when we pointed out the two bald tires,” Chris Marlow, one of the officers, told the Echo, earning a round of applause from pun lovers everywhere.

Can scrapie in sheep cause disease in humans?

Posted on by
Reply

On March 20, 1996, British Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell rose in the House to inform colleagues that scientists had discovered a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (CJD) in 10 victims, and that they could not rule out a link with consumption of beef from cattle with bovine spongiform encephalapthy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease.

timmy.timeThe announcement of March 20, 1996 was the culmination of 15 years of mismanagement, political bravado and a gross underestimation of the public’s capacity to deal with risk.  More important than any of the several lessons to be drawn from the BSE fiasco was this: the risk of no-risk messages.  For 10 years the British government and leading scientific advisors insisted there was no risk — or that the risk was so infintesimly small that it could be said there was no risk — of BSE leading to a similar malady in humans, CJD, even in the face of contradictory evidence.  The no-risk message contributed to the devastating economic and social effects on Britons, a nation of beefeaters, the slaughter of over 1 million British cattle, and a decrease in global consumption of beef, especially in Japan, at a cost of billions of dollars.

Part of that logic stemmed from the apparent absence of zoonotic or human effects from the sheep transmissible spongiform Encephalopathy, scrapie, which had been know in the UK for hundreds of years.

mad.cows.mothers.milkEuropean researchers have now reviewed the available evidence.

The factors that modulate the transmissibility of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) and the approaches for the study of their zoonotic potential are reviewed. The paper ‘Evidence for zoonotic potential of ovine scrapie prions’ by Cassard et al. (2014) is scientifically appraised, focussing on the experimental design, the results and the conclusions.

The paper provides evidence in a laboratory experiment that some Classical scrapie isolates can propagate in humanised transgenic mice and produce prions that on second passage are similar to those causing one form of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD). It is concluded that the results from the study raise the possibility that scrapie prions have the potential to be zoonotic, but do not provide evidence that transmission can or does take place under field conditions.

The conclusions of the 2011 ECDC-EFSA ‘Joint Scientific Opinion on any possible epidemiological or molecular association between TSEs in animals and humans’ are reviewed in the light of the new scientific evidence available since its publication. This supports and strengthens the conclusions of that opinion with regard to the potential for some animal TSE to be zoonotic, but does not provide evidence of a causal link between Classical or Atypical scrapie and human TSE. Current evidence does not establish this link, and no consistent risk factors have been identified for sCJD.

shaun.sheep
The possibility of scrapie-related public health risks from the consumption of ovine products cannot be assessed. Recommendations are formulated on further studies and data that are needed to investigate the zoonotic potential of animal TSE and to estimate the amount of infectivity from TSE-infected products sourced from small ruminants and entering the food chain in the European Union.

Scientific Opinion on a request for a review of a scientific publication concerning the zoonotic potential of ovine scrapie prions

EFSA Journal 2015;13(8):4197 [58 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4197

EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4197.htm?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ej

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4197.htm?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ej

Mr Phungs struck with £4,000 court bill for Chinese takeaway

Posted on by
Reply

The boss of a Chinese takeaway in Leeds, UK, has been left with a court bill of more than £4,000 after inspectors found a string of filthy conditions and food safety breaches.

mr.phung'sCau Tuyet Phung, operator of Mr Phungs at 4 Selby Avenue in the Halton area, was called to appear before Leeds magistrates and was found guilty of contravening a number of food safety rules.

He was fined £1,500 and must also pay £2,745.05 in costs and a £50 victim surcharge.

During a routine inspection, environmental health officers found failure to protect food from possible contamination, failure to keep the premises clean, failure to keep items of equipment clean and failure to put in place and implement a food safety management system.

I want microbiologically safe, not ecologically clean food

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe something is lost in translation but according to Focus-fen.net the Bulgarian sheep-breeders association is telling folks not to eat raw meat or drink raw milk due to anthrax and brucellosis risks.

Biser Chilingirov, chairperson of Bulgaria’s National Sheep-breeding Association urged stock-breeders and farmers to wear wire mesh gloves when butchering animals to prevent themselves for getting cuts.shaun_the_sheep_wallpaper_border

Biser Chilingirov told people to purchase products directly from farms as they were “ecologically clean”. 

Not sure what that means but I’d like to see some data.

Cyclospora in Canada: PHAC and CFIA investigate

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, over 80 Canadians are ill with Cyclospora and the source isn’t known. It’s also not clear whether these illnesses are linked to the 350+ cases of Cyclospora in Texas and elsewhere.

Related, or maybe not, who can tell, cilantro produced in Puebla, Mexico was banned from the U.S. a couple of weeks ago – after hundreds of Cyclospora illnesses going back to 2012.230px-Cyclospora_cayetanensis

The Public Health Agency of Canada is collaborating with provincial public health partners, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Health Canada to investigate 83 Canadian cases of Cyclospora infections in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The source of this outbreak is not yet known, and the Agency and its partners continue to investigate.

In Canada, a total of 83 cases have been reported in British Columbia (3), Alberta (1), Ontario (74), and Quebec (5). Two cases have been hospitalized, and are recovered or recovering. No deaths have been reported. Individuals became sick between May 9 and July 18, 2015. To date, no source has been identified. The investigation is ongoing.

The Public Health Agency of Canada is leading the human health investigation of this outbreak and is in regular contact with its federal and provincial partners to monitor and take collaborative steps to address the outbreak. Health Canada provides food-related health risk assessments to determine if the presence of a certain substance or microorganism poses a health risk to consumers. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) conducts food safety investigations into the possible food source of an outbreak. The Government of Canada will continue to update Canadians as new information related to this investigation becomes available.

So many questions – are the Canadians coordinating with U.S. officials who are investigating american Cyclospora illnesses? Are Canadians still getting cilantro from Puebla, Mexico? This is a weird statement at the bottom of the press release:

To date, no multi-jurisdictional outbreaks have been linked to produce grown in Canada.

Bullshit alert: Canadians sickened at Cuba resort, told everything is fine

Posted on by
Reply

Many Cuba-bound Canadian travellers are pissed – and barfing —  saying they want no part of visiting a resort that is the focus of a Global News investigation. As Sean O’Shea reports, travellers say they don’t want to become ill like so many who just returned from the resort.

Canadians with confirmed bookings to a Cuban resort where it’s believed norovirus made travellers sick say their tour operator hasn’t allowed them to switch to another resort or wanted to charge them.

“No, I don’t want to go there, I don’t want to be exposed to that … everyone’s health is at risk; that’s not fair,” said Kayla Halloran, a third-year Ryerson nursing student with a ticket to visit the resort with a friend later this month.

After seeing a Global News story on problems at the Memories Paraiso Azul Resort in Cayo Santa Maria Cuba, she contacted tour operator Sunwing Vacations to ask to be switched to another resort.

“They said I could change my resort to somewhere else but I have to pay a change fee plus a cancellation fee,” Halloran said.

Global News received a cascade of complaints from Canadian travellers who returned from the resort.

They said they had experienced diarrhea and vomiting during most or all of their vacations.

Some reported seeing feces wash up on the hotel beach, finding feces beside the swimming pool, and experiencing dirty washrooms with toilets that didn’t work.

Other travellers told Global News they visited the same property in April and that it was without fresh water for two days.

During that time, Canadians visiting said they had no access to clean linens or water to flush toilets; they said staff at the hotel had no means to wash dishes or sanitize food service areas.

But despite the problems, they said the tour operator continued to send travellers to the resort.

In a terse email Thursday, Sunwing marketing vice president Janine Chapman provided a statement to Global News for its television broadcast, prefaced with this unusual proviso:

Bullshit alert: “We will provide you with the below statement for this evening’s segment on the basis that it is read in its entirety, uninterrupted.”

As a matter of journalistic policy, Global News does not agree to such demands.

Maria Peragine says days after returning from Cuba, her family is starting to feel better.

But she says Sunwing ought to have stopped sending travellers to the Memories Paraiso Azul when it was clear people were getting sick.

“They knew about it and continued to allow guests to come to the resort,” said Peragine.

“I’m amazed at how they continue to lie.”

Atlanta café sucks at handwashing

Posted on by
Reply

Multiple food prep employees at Saigon Cafe in Buford were only rinsing their hands briefly in cold water while prepping food during a recent inspection, leading to a failing health score.

buford.t.justiceThe Gwinnett County health inspector said another employee touched raw beef with gloved hands, then took off the gloves to handle ready-to-eat foods but didn’t wash his hands to ensure they were free of contaminants.

The inspector said there was no managerial control over food safety at the restaurant. Saigon Cafe, 3380 Buford Drive, scored 44/U on the routine inspection. Previous scores were 85/B and 80/B.

Points were also taken off because improper cooling methods were being used for potentially hazardous foods. Cooked chicken, pork and chicken broth were all discarded because they had not cooled sufficiently in the time allowed.

Several items in coolers were not separated to prevent contamination. Unwashed fruits and vegetables were not separated from the ready-to-eat foods, and loosely wrapped packages of raw pork spring rolls and vegetable spring rolls were stacked together.

What goes in the fridge for safety reasons and other tales

Posted on by
Reply

Evidence and perception aren’t often congruent in the food safety world. There are lots of examples from the pages of the Internet: Dirty bathrooms are an indicator of sanitation in the kitchen; pathogens won’t transfer in less than five seconds when food hits the floor; and, yogurt is dangerous if consumed after the best-before date are just a few.

K. Aleisha Fetters of Yahoo News connected with Schaffner and I on the difference between refrigeration for safety and keeping stuff cool for spoilage and quality reasons.

Here are some excerpts.k2-_bd216f83-0923-407e-aea5-f57dc7338ebc.v1

Ketchup: Can remain at room temperature.
Ever wondered why restaurants keep ketchup on their tables rather than back in the fridge? Because it won’t make you sick, says Benjamin Chapman, PhD, associate professor and food safety extension specialist at North Carolina State University. Ketchup is so acidic that it prevents the growth of harmful bacteria. It will spoil faster if left out on the counter, but it could still take months to turn bad.

Fruits and vegetables: It depends.
If you think about it, fruits and vegetables grow outside at temps far higher than room temperature. That’s why, when they are whole, they are safe on your counter. However, when you cut them (or in the case of lettuce, just tear their stems from the ground), you actually rip open the cells of the plant. This releases nutrients, water, and bacteria, and allows them to mingle with each other, says food microbiologist Donald W. Schaffner, PhD, distinguished professor at Rutgers University. For example, when you cut a tomato or avocado, you need to keep it in the fridge to prevent the growth of salmonella. However, it’s worth noting that listeria can grow (albeit slowly) at cold temps. That’s why, even if you keep cut melons in the fridge, you should throw them out or add them to the compost pile after four days, Chapman says.

Mayonnaise: Must be refrigerated.
Well, this one is really more of an “it depends,” but we’re going to suggest sticking it in the fridge just in case. Most store-bought mayo is acidic enough to keep on the counter without it growing bad-for-you bacteria all by itself. (That’s why fast-food joints can keep it out in pumps until it’s used up.) But, if you cut some veggies with a knife, and then stick that knife in your jar of mayonnaise, you could potentially introduce bacteria into the mayo that is able to grow at room temperature, Chapman says. Meanwhile, whatever the recipe, homemade mayo is generally not acidic enough to fend off pathogens.

Listeria be out there: FDA reports on cantaloupe safety inspections

Posted on by
1

Coral Beach of The Packer reports that after inspecting 17 operations, federal officials say that fresh cantaloupe packinghouses are generally following good agriculture practices even though tests at nine of the companies showed listeria contamination.

cantaloupe.handThe inspections by the Food and Drug Administration were part of the agency’s follow-up efforts after a 2011 cantaloupe-related listeria monocytogenes outbreak that sickened more than 150 nationwide and killed more than 30.

“FDA’s 2013 cantaloupe packinghouse (investigation) was intended to further inform FDA of current cantaloupe packinghouse operating practices and conditions and provide data on the expected prevalence of listeria monocytogenes in and on cantaloupes and within packinghouses’ food and non-food contact surfaces during packing, handling and storage,” according to a July 27 report from consumer safety officer Michael Mahovic, who works with the agency’s division of produce safety.

For the review, FDA only inspected “firms that pack fresh cantaloupe in a packinghouse,” according to the report. “Processing facilities, growing fields, cantaloupe that are ‘field-packed’ and firms that do not handle cantaloupe were considered out of scope.”

Initially, FDA identified 50 firms in 18 states for review, but some of those companies were no longer in business and others turned out to be distributors, not packers. The remaining 17 firms that met the review criteria received notice 24 hours before inspectors arrived.

The agency collected environmental and product samples before and after packing and used a standardized questionnaire tailored for cantaloupe packinghouses to collect information and observations about each firm, according to the report.

All 17 firms had food safety plans and all reported they were aware of the 2011 listeria outbreak and that they “took some action to evaluate or bolster their own operations, from re-evaluating their own food safety plans, to completely refitting their buildings,” according to the report.

Eight firms did not have any positive listeria test results. One had pathogenic listeria present and the other eight tested positive for non-pathogenic listeria.

“Such findings do, however, suggest the potential for (pathogenic) listeria monocytogenes to be present,” according to the report.