Andréas Göransson of Food Supply writes (something may be lost in translation) that last week, an extensive false mark of imported honey has been discovered. Bluffen was revealed when buyer Lars Pettersson on LP’s beekeeping in Säffle made a so-called pollen analysis that showed that the party was from Asia and not as stated from Sweden. Several buyers have been fooled and among the beekeepers in Sweden, it is unclear that the fake will affect customers’ confidence in their products.
John Murphy of MD Linx writes that vultures are nature’s cleanup crew, but their carrion-based meals would cause food poisoning or even death in humans and other animals. Because vultures feed on decomposing carcasses, they encounter a variety of dangerous pathogens, including those that cause anthrax, tuberculosis, brucellosis, and others. They also end up ingesting nasty stuff that goes along with carrion, such as soil-dwelling bacteria, nematodes, fungi, and insects. Yet, vultures don’t get sick from eating this kind of “junk food.”
What’s in a vulture’s digestive system that enables it to eat dead meat without getting sick?
How do vultures survive on this rotten diet? More importantly, what can we learn about their eating habits and hardy digestion that could help us prevent food poisoning and other gastrointestinal problems in humans? Investigators are now trying to find out.
Scientists have a number of hypotheses about how these scavengers avoid sickness with this diet. Researchers led by Daniel T. Blumstein, PhD, professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA, performed a systematic review to investigate some of the proposed behavioral and physiologic defenses.
One of these hypothesized defenses argues the vulture’s bald head is more hygienic than a feathered head. But there’s no evidence to support this idea. Other hypotheses are that vultures prefer to eat fresh carcasses over older ones, and that vultures’ highly acidic stomachs eliminate the majority of pathogens before the most harmful microbes reach the gut.
But perhaps the most convincing hypothesis is that the vulture’s microbiome not only manages digestion, but also helps combat, prevent, and balance the plethora of potential pathogens—some of which may even provide helpful nutrients through digestion.
It’s this hypothesis that has captured the interest of scientists. In 2014, researchers reported findings from the first deep metagenomic analysis of the vulture microbiome. They found, on average, 76 types of microorganisms in the gut. But they found nearly 7 times that many—an average of 528 different types of microorganisms—on the facial skin of vultures.
“Our results show there has been strong adaptation in vultures when it comes to dealing with the toxic bacteria they digest,” said first author Michael Roggenbuck, PhD, then a postdoctoral microbiology researcher, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. “On one hand, vultures have developed an extremely tough digestive system, which simply acts to destroy the majority of the dangerous bacteria they ingest. On the other hand, vultures also appear to have developed a tolerance towards some of the deadly bacteria—species that would kill other animals actively seem to flourish in the vulture lower intestine.”
(Anyone who is quoted saying ‘on the one hand’ and ‘on the other hand’ has no role trying to communicate about science.)
Vultures need this combination—a robust digestive system plus a high bacterial tolerance—to withstand some of the food challenges they face. For instance, because of the tough hides of some large animals, vultures often take an easier back-door route—through the anus—to get at their meal. This increases the likelihood of ingesting anaerobic fecal bacteria such as clostridia and fusobacteria, noted Dr. Roggenbuck and coauthors.
“These observations raise the question as to whether the clostridia and fusobacteria in the [vulture’s] gut simply outcompete the other bacteria but don’t confer any benefit to the vulture, or in contrast, if their presence actually confers dietary advantages for the vultures,” Dr. Roggenbuck said. “The team’s results suggest that it’s probably a bit of both—while other microorganisms are likely outcompeted by the surviving bacteria, the vultures also receive a steady stream of important nutrients when the bacteria break down the carrion.”
Why should they?
The food safety efforts are hidden behind layers of bafflegab that consumers don’t care about, with their crying kids at the grocery store, and their partners who don’t understand the stress they are under and all sorts of modern angst.
Tom Karst of The Packer writes that a new survey from food and marketing agency Charleston Orwig found that more than a quarter of consumers said they do not trust the vigilance of the food industry’s safety efforts.
In a blog post called “Food Safety in America – Time to Bolster Consumer Confidence,” the agency reported a survey of 500 consumers found:
When asked if they trusted the food industry for safe food, 48% said they do trust the food industry and 27% said they did not;
More than 77% of consumers say that cooking a meal in their own kitchens is the best way to ensure it is safe to eat;
Restaurants were deemed the second safest, with more than 59% of consumers considering this to be a reliable option;
Just 29% of respondents consider food trucks or public vendors safe and almost 42% considering this option potentially unsafe;
Asked to compare food safety now versus a decade ago, about 35% of consumer said food is safer and 32% said it was less safe;
The survey said 59% of consumers said they assume food from individual farmers, food manufacturers or restaurants is safe if they have not heard about a specific problem;
The survey said that having had a food-borne illness did not make a person think food was less safe than participants overall;
49% of consumers said grains, beans and pasta are the safest foods, followed by fresh fruits and vegetables at 42%;
Leafy greens and lettuce were tied with processed food as the next category of highest concern with 45% of consumers rating them risky, according to the survey; and
55% say meat and poultry are the riskiest to eat; the blog post speculated the divide could be tied to people’s overall perception of what makes up a healthy diet.
I had David Bowie’s Modern Love linked to this post, but just couldn’t do it, because I don’t like David Bowie. Instead you get Pete.
When a common ingredient used in a bunch of ready-to-eat foods is recalled things snowball. One recall announcement turns quickly into multiple and leads to larger questions about overall systems.
Or as Don told Consumer Reports last week, ‘It’s the nature of our complex food system today. If a potentially contaminated bit of onion gets used in a burrito,’ he explains, ‘you have to recall the whole burrito.’
Since Oct. 16, there have been at least 13 recalls of ready-made foods, such as salads, sandwiches, wraps, pizza, and burritos, due to potential salmonella and listeriacontamination. All of these foods have been traced back to a single plant owned by McCain Foods, in Colton, Calif., which processes, cooks, and freezes vegetables for distribution to other food producers.
To date, almost 4 million pounds of food sold under many different brand names have been recalled, and the Food and Drug Administration says more recalled products may still be announced.
All of the products involved are now past their expiration dates, so they shouldn’t be on store shelves. In addition, according to a spokesperson from the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS): “FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks … to verify [that] recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers.” (In this case, “customers” refers to food companies that purchase vegetables from McCain.)
The FDA notes that some of the recalled products require cooking, which could potentially kill dangerous pathogens. However, many of the recalled items are considered “ready-to-eat” or RTE.
And that makes them risky, says James E. Rogers, Ph.D., director of food safety research and testing at Consumer Reports. Even if the product was intended for cooking at home, different food items need to be heated to different temperatures to guarantee bacteria will be killed. Consumers may not always know to heat the product thoroughly.
Additionally, Rogers notes that handling products that contain foodborne pathogens—even if heated thoroughly—could contaminate anything they come into contact with, like your hands. The safest bet is to throw them out.
Eric Schlosser writes in this New York Times review of Deborah Blum’s new book, “The Poison Squad,” that a now forgotten chemist at the Department of Agriculture, Harvey Washington Wiley, played a more important role — not only in ensuring the passage of the 1906 food safety bills but also in changing popular attitudes toward government intervention on behalf of consumers.
In 1906 the United States was the only major industrialized nation without strict laws forbidding the sale of contaminated and adulterated food. In their absence, the free market made it profitable to supply a wide range of unappetizing fare. Ground-up insects were sold as brown sugar. Children’s candy was routinely colored with lead and other heavy metals. Beef hearts and other organ meats were processed, canned and labeled as chicken. Perhaps one-third of the butter for sale wasn’t really butter but rather all sorts of other things — beef tallow, pork fat, the ground-up stomachs of cows and sheep — transformed into a yellowish substance that looked like butter.
Harvey Washington Wiley was born in a log cabin on April 16, 1844, a fitting entrance for an American hero. His father was a farmer and a lay preacher in southern Indiana who sheltered escaped slaves as part of the Underground Railroad. Wiley served briefly in the Civil War, studied medicine in Indiana and chemistry at Harvard, and became the first chemistry professor at Purdue University in 1874.
The deliberate adulteration of food had been a problem for millenniums, inspiring government regulations in ancient Egypt, Sumeria and Rome. By the late 1870s, the Industrial Revolution, applied to food processing, provided a variety of new techniques and ingredients useful for committing fraud — artificial flavors, artificial colorings, chemical preservatives. But simultaneous advances in chemistry also facilitated the detection of such fakery. At the request of the Indiana State Board of Health in 1881, Wiley began to study the authenticity of the honey and maple syrup for sale in that state. According to Blum, he used laboratory instruments like the polariscope to uncover that “a full 90 percent of his syrup samples were fakes … and there were ‘beekeepers’ who had not, of late, been bothering to keep bees.” Wiley’s findings soon appeared in Popular Science magazine, and his career as a public crusader was launched.
After being named the U.S.D.A.’s chief chemist in 1882, Wiley spent the next 30 years at the department campaigning for safe food and proper labeling. He supervised a series of investigative reports that gained much public attention, warning about “pepper” made from sawdust, “cocoa powder” containing iron oxides and tin, “flour” laced with clay and powdered white rocks, “whiskey” that was actually watered-down ethyl alcohol tinted brown with prune juice, “coffee” that featured ingredients like sand, tree bark, ground acorns, charcoal and a black powder composed of charred bone. To test the health impact of various additives, he recruited young men to serve as guinea pigs in “hygienic table trials,” serving them questionable ingredients during meals in the basement of U.S.D.A. headquarters — and then observing what happened. Soon known as the Poison Squad, these idealistic volunteers embraced the motto on a sign in their special dining room: “only the brave dare eat the fare.” …
“The Poison Squad” offers a powerful reminder that truth can defeat lies, that government can protect consumers and that an honest public servant can overcome the greed of private interests.
My friend, Roy Costa from Florida, sent along this piece and I deemed it worthy.
The foreign supplier verification rule is foreign to many importers, October 20, 2018
The Foreign Supplier Verification Rule (FSVP), 21 CFR Part 1, Subpart L, is the part of the Food Safety Modernization Act that regulates the importation of food covered by FDA. While the Act when into effect in 2015, some importers have not yet fully implemented an FSVP program.
An FSVP program is a risk-based system that ensures that foreign suppliers meet the same US rules for food safety as domestic suppliers. This means that importers must verify that FDA’s rules, the Current GMP Hazard Analysis and Risk Based Preventive Controls for Human and Animal Foods, and the Produce Safety rules, have been implemented by suppliers.
Importers bare the responsibility for verification of the safety of foods imported into the US. The Customs filings now include a line item for the “FSVP Importer”. This entry utilizes the Dunn and Bradstreet’s unique facility identifier-the DUNS Number; no food maybe imported without this filing. Whoever is identified as the FSVP Importer must be qualified through education and experience to understand any document submitted for verification, and is subject to unannounced FDA inspection.
The FSVP rule allows third-party audits, microbial, physical and chemical testing and operational records to be used for verification purposes. The key documents an importer must verify are the Food Safety Plan of foreign manufacturers, and the records that show compliance with the Produce Safety rule.
In order to understand these complex verification documents, one must understand the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept. Education in the Preventive Controls and Produce Safety rules will be necessary for most importers. Without a scientific background, understanding how to successfully apply the five preliminary HACCP steps and the seven HACCP principles is impossible, and the Produce rule requires a deep understanding of Good Agricultural Practices.
Some importers will not be qualified to make decisions about supplier approval, or even understand what is required of them, without training.
An importer must prepare his own FSVP program for each commodity he obtains, based on a risk assessment similar to HACCP. He can only do this if he is a FSVP Qualified Individual, although he can hire or use another Qualified Individual, if he is not so qualified.
The barriers of entry are high. If a supplier does not meet the rules, or if the importer cannot verify the safety of foods, no such foods can be obtained. This could put some importers out of business, and restrict trade in foreign foods.
The impact is huge for the global economy. Currently, imported foods make up an estimated 15 percent of the U.S. food supply, including 50 percent of fresh fruits, 20 percent of fresh vegetables and 80 percent of seafood.
The FSVP rule prohibits anyone with a financial interest in the outcome of verification to have a financial interest in an approval decision. The problems with conflicts of interest in this scheme are readily apparent, since many importers also own the operations of the foreign supplier, and virtually all importers have some kind of monetary incentive for bringing products into the US.
FDA has the authority to inspect the records of the FSVP Importer, and they typically do not notify in advance of a routine inspection. Once in the office, FDA has access to virtually all the records of the importing firm, and will expect that the firm has a Qualified Individual, policies and procedures, records, and a risk-based system to make decisions about supplier approval, with an approved supplier list. Without these vital documents, there will be no way an importer can demonstrate compliance.
At this time, FDA is making inspections to primarily educate the industry, but they will act if they find an importer violating US rules or obtaining unsafe foods.
With such dire consequences possible, one would expect that an importer would seek education in areas of legal compliance, but the industry has not shown overwhelming interest in taking the training needed to understand their responsibilities.
Eventually, the agency will take a focused approach to weeding out the non-compliant importing operations, but the job will be difficult. Policing these complex importer arrangements will not be an easy assignment; it is well known the importers sometimes flaunt the rules that have been in place, and engage in port shopping, ignoring Import Alerts, and outright deception. These new regulations should allow FDA to be more effective in detecting criminal activity, and I expect that penalties will be severe for importers who bring in contaminated foods that cause illness and death to US consumers.
I also expect that product liability will eventually stretch back to the importer in such cases, and that lawsuits will take into consideration the compliance history of the importer when perusing justice for victims of foodborne illness.
I strongly recommend that both foreign suppliers and importers take the Food Safety Preventive Controls Alliance FSVP course, and the other FSPCA relevant courses as needed, Preventive Controls for Human and Animal Foods, and Produce Safety Rules, and learn how to develop a compliant FSVP program.
Contact Environ Health Associates, Course Administration Manager; Katherine Jones 386-316-7266 for course registration.
Now they’re citing my lab in Turkey.
OK, I had a bunch of qualified people, and I’m putting the band back together to write a book.
These Turkey folks don’t know shit.
Neither do lots of others.
The purpose of this study is to examine the food safety knowledge of foodservice staff in fast-food restaurants in a Turkish context. Data for this empirical investigation was gathered from a sample of full-time foodservice staff at the different fast-food restaurants in Ankara/Turkey. Respondents self-administered the questionnaires. The total number of 165 questionnaires was obtained in the research location. Results based on the descriptive statistics, staff works in fast food restaurants in Ankara are not knowledgeable on foodborne/food poisoning and the training rate is not at the satisfactory level. In addition, t-test result demonstrates that female respondents are more knowledgeable compared to males. This paper provides implications for managers in terms of minimising the negative effects of foodborne diseases and maximising the employees’ food safety knowledge in a service setting where the food industry is increasing. Theoretically, the current study by examining the food safety knowledge of restaurant staff and providing insights into the foodborne disease in a developing touristic destination lends further contribution to the related literature.
Assessing the food safety knowledge of fast-food restaurant staff in Ankara/Turkey: some strategies from managerial approach
Middle East Journal of Management, https://doi.org/10.1504/MEJM.2018.095583
Kerem Kaptangil, Mustafa Daskin
https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/MEJM.2018.095583
The purpose of this draft compliance and implementation guidance document is to help covered farms comply with the requirements of the Produce Safety Rule, which establishes science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce. Entitled “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption,” the rule is part of FDA’s implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).
The draft guidance provides a broad range of recommendations on how to meet the requirements for most subparts of the rule. It also outlines how to determine whether produce or farms may be eligible for exemptions from certain requirements, or from the rule in its entirety.
Specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited, and in some cases, specified using the word must. The use of the word should indicates that something is recommended, but not required. The use of the word including means options that are not limited to the described items.
You are encouraged to submit comments on the draft guidance within 180 days of the publish date to ensure your comments are considered while FDA works on the final version of the guidance.
In addition to the draft guidance, there is an At-a-Glance overview of key points in each of the nine chapters described below, as well as a glossary of key terms. The overviews summarize important aspects of each chapter. It is recommended that you review the draft guidance itself for complete information.
A man who contaminated baby food in Germany has been sent to jail for 12-and-a-half years.
Gavin Grey of Eyewitness News reports the 54-year-old had attempted to blackmail retailers by claiming he would point out the poisoned items in return for cash.
He targeted shops in a southern German city.
In court, he admitted placing poisoned jars of adult and baby food in supermarkets and trying to blackmail the owners.
The contaminated jars contained ethylene glycol which is an odourless and toxic liquid used in antifreeze.
Prosecutors said some of the foods contained enough of the poison to kill a child and he was found guilty of five counts of attempted murder.
He was also found guilty of extortion, sending threatening emails to the stores demanding R200 million.
The court heard it was a matter of luck no child had been hurt.
Europol coordinated the international Operation Tarantelo, conducted by the Spanish Guardia Civil with support of French, Italian, Maltese and Portuguese authorities, in which 79 individuals were arrested.
More than 80 000 kg of illicit Bluefin tuna were seized and it is estimated the network trafficked a volume of over 2.5 million kg a year
Several poisoning cases were detected due to the unsanitary conditions in which the fish were stored
Operation Tarantelo was launched when the Spanish Guardia Civil became aware of irregularities relating to Bluefin tuna fishing in the Mediterranean Sea. Investigations revealed that the fish was being traded illegally in Spain, but imported into the country through French harbours, after being caught in Italian and Maltese waters. While the fish caught in Maltese waters were illegally imported using documents from legal fishing and authorised farms, the fish caught in Italian waters arrived in Spain without documents or inspections. Although most of the fish was caught in Malta and Italy, in Spanish waters there were also unauthorised catches, in this case, the illegally fished Bluefin tuna was transported in false bottoms under the deck of a vessel.
This illegal Bluefin tuna market was up to 2.5 million kg a year and it is estimated criminals earn at least EUR 5 profit per kg; total illegal profits amount to EUR 12.5 million. The volume of this illegal trade is double the annual volume of the legal trade, which is estimated to be 1.25 million kg.
The tuna business is often linked to other crimes such as food fraud or document fraud. The main risks for consumer health were due to the unsanitary conditions in which the fish was transported and stored. Sometimes the fish was hidden underwater after it was fished, awaiting transportation. The supply chain was interrupted several times, which made the tuna go off and the risk of food poising higher for eventual customers. Several cases of food poisoning were detected after eating the tuna, due to the degradation of proteins from the unhygienic conditions in which the tuna was stored.