Listeria-in-cantaloupe victims go after Primus Labs

Posted on November 23, 2013 by Douglas Powell

Audits and inspections set a food safety minimum.

The best farmers, processors and retailers will go far above and beyond what is required by minimal standards.

Coral Beach of The Packer reports that following a meeting with some family members of victims of the 2011 listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupe from their farm, Eric and Ryan Jensen signed over a lawsuit they filed against Primus Labs to the victims.

Attorney Bill Marler, who represents 46 of the 64 victims and their families who have filed civil suits against the Jensen brothers, said Nov. 21 that he would soon file a notice of appearance in Colorado state court in the case against the Santa Maria, Calif., auditing firm.

By “assigning” the case to the victims, the Jensens have basically taken themselves out of the lawsuit against Primus Labs, Marler said. Now he and the other lawyers representing victims in civil cases against the Jensens will prosecute the Colorado case against Primus Labs.

Any settlement in the Primus Labs case will be divided among the victims, Marler said. He said he could not estimate how long it would take to resolve the case. Marler will continue to represent 46 clients who have filed civil suits against the Jensens.

In the suit against Primus Labs, the Jensen brothers contend the auditing firm should be liable for damages related to the 2011 listeria outbreak that killed at least 33 people.

The Jensens hired Primus Labs to do a food safety audit of their operation, but the company paid a third-party contractor to do the job.

Bio Food Safety, a Texas company, sent auditor James Dilorio to Jensen Farms, Holly, Colo., on July 25, 2011, according to the Jensens’ complaint.

Dilorio gave the Jensens’ operation a score of 96 out of 100. He did not raise questions about numerous issues that the Food and Drug Administration cited in its inspection report on the Jensens’ farm and packing facility after the deadly outbreak.

As we wrote last year:

• 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;

• there 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

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.

Do audits and inspections make food safer? Sometimes, or not; Florida tomato growers look to harmonized audits

Posted on September 5, 2013 by Douglas Powell

Florida tomato grower, packers and shippers may, according to The Grower, finally get some relief from audit fatigue caused by having to undergo several different food safety inspections required by multiple buyers.

Reggie Brown, executive vice president of the Maitland-based Florida Tomato Exchange, said he hoped that with the beginning of this year’s tomato season in late fall that buyers will opt for a single harmonized audit.

“It would be just one audit and it would include the fields and the packing facilities,” Brown said.

But do audits or inspections enhance food safety? Or is there another way? Are some companies better?

1970s Pinto redux; Townsend Farms passes health inspections after Hepatitis A outbreak

Posted on June 14, 2013 by Douglas Powell

It’s the Pinto argument, and segments of the food industry still haven’t learned, 40 years later.

The Pinto automobile – my high school friend Dave had a similar Vega – met all government standards, but still had had tendency to explode when hit from behind; like a Sherman tank.

Decades of risk communication research have shown in various fields that meeting government standards is about the worst thing you can say to consumers to build trust.

Which is why it’s so baffling that so many commodities so many years later insist on government inspection as some sort of meaningful standard.

It’s a cop-out.

Lynne Terry of The Oregonian says that Townsend Farms, the producer of frozen berries linked to a Hepatitis A outbreak that has sickened 97 or 99, has passed inspections by county and state health types.

Which they would, if the source of the Hepatitis A is pomegranate seeds from Turkey or somewhere.

It’s that missing food safety ingredient – source food from safer sources.

And don’t rely on inspections or external audits.

Does any company really want to bet their brand on someone else?

Meat safety management in complex world

Posted on February 26, 2013 by Douglas Powell

I’m at the L.A. airport and can’t get to Kansas City for my interview to prove I’m worthy to be a U.S. citizen because of snow. Bloody Marys and free Internet ease the angst (I don’t really have angst).

And I won’t be at the seminar by Scott Goltry, vice president, technical services, American Meat Institute at 4 pm today at Kansas State University. But that’s what the Internet is for.

Scott provides oversight to AMI’s packer and processor members on current and proposed inspection related issues. He is responsible for audit harmonization, food defense and sanitary design of facility and equipment initiatives at AMI. Scott is a Kansas native and K-State alum.

The seminar takes place at the Mara Conference Center, 4th Floors, Trotter Hall – College of Veterinary Medicine.

The live stream will be available at

http://www.vet.k-state.edu/liveStream/liveStream.htm.

Horse meat blame game ‘audits are useless’

Posted on February 24, 2013 by Douglas Powell

As Germans blame Poles, Ireland finds fraud, and Australians wonder what will happen to the 700 horses slaughtered each month at two abattoirs for human consumption overseas, a retired meat inspector told a UK government committee the audit system is a “disgrace” and in need of a “total review.”

Food Navigator reports that in written evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Paul Smith a retired inspector with 43 years of experience in the meat industry said, there is a “massive failure” of “multiple retailers” to monitor suppliers through appropriate inspections at appropriate intervals.

“The suppliers (the auditees) can select which “approved inspection body” they use. They also pay for the audit.

“In practice, they also pick which auditor by heaping praise on them followed by request for same individual next visit.”

I’ve yet to hear a company stand up and say, this is how we will prevent this in the future. Instead it’s just more of the same thing – audits and inspections – but in the future they will be really, really super serious.

That’s crazy.

We looked at why audits and inspections are never enough, and concluded:

• 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;

• 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;

• there 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);

• 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

Jail finally possible for (alleged) food safety cheats in US

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Douglas Powell

In Jan. 2009, Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) recalled over 3,900 peanut butter and other peanut-containing products from more than 350 companies after an outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium ultimately sickened 714 people and killed nine across 46 U.S. states and Canada.

The human toll related to a bunch of peanut-paste containing crackers and snacky thingies seems tragically outrageous. How people and corporations responded seems tragically disrespectful to those who got sick and died.

Kellogg was one of the hardest hit food processors that used PCA paste, recalling hundreds of products. In response to the outbreak, then CEO David Mackay told a congressional hearing on March 19, 2009, that PCA had been audited by the American Institute of Baking (AIB) “the most commonly used auditor in the U.S” and received a SUPERIOR rating.

Audits and inspections are never enough; but they are tools in the food safety toolkit that can ultimately create awareness and possibly prevent tragedy. Jail and steep fines are others, ones many other countries are quick to use.

The Justice Department on Thursday alleged that Stewart Parnell, the former owner of Peanut Corp. of America, and other employees engaged in a multiyear conspiracy to hide the fact that many company products were tainted with salmonella.

Prosecutors said the company failed to notify its customers—including several national food companies—when independent lab tests revealed the presence of salmonella. In some cases, company officials fabricated lab results, stating that peanut products were salmonella-free even when tests showed otherwise, or when no tests had been conducted at all, the department said.

The New York Times reports that criminal charges are relatively rare in food-poisoning cases. One of the few examples came in 2000 when the company then known as Sara Lee Foods pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge over selling adulterated meat and paid more than $4.4 million.

The 76-count indictment against the Peanut Corp. owner and employees includes charges for shipment fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

“These defendants cared less about the quality of the food they were providing to the American people and more about the quantity of money they were gathering while disregarding food safety,” said Michael Moore, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia.

The indictment includes details of alleged communications Mr. Parnell had with customers and employees. According to the charges, after one customer notified him that Peanut Corp. products had tested positive for salmonella, Mr. Parnell allegedly stated—falsely—that he was “dumbfounded” by the finding and had never “seen any instance of this.”

In one internal email, Mr. Parnell allegedly told employees they couldn’t waste peanuts. “These are not peanuts you are throwing away every day…IT IS…MONEY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE,” Mr. Parnell allegedly wrote, according to the indictment.

The indictment also charges Michael Parnell, who is Stewart Parnell’s brother and a former supervisor, as well as Samuel Lightsey, a onetime plant operator, with many violations related to the company’s alleged deceptions.

Mary Wilkerson, a former quality-assurance manager, was included in obstruction-of-justice charges. The Justice Department said another former employee, Daniel Kilgore, has pleaded guilty to several charges.

The company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in early 2009, weeks after the outbreak began.

Stuart F. Delery, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said, “The Department of Justice will not hesitate to pursue any person whose criminal conduct risks the safety of Americans who have done nothing more than eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

In response, attorneys Bill Gust and Tom Bondurant said in a statement “At this point, we will evaluate the charges that have been filed against Mr. Parnell and will prepare for a vigorous defense. There is little doubt that as the facts in this case are revealed, it will become apparent that the FDA was in regular contact with (Peanut Corporation of America) about its food handling policy and was well aware of its salmonella testing protocols.”

Jim Parkman, a lawyer for Lightsey, said nothing in the indictment surprises him and he is eager to defend his client.

“I’m glad it finally came out so we can get this cleared up and clear Sammy’s name,” he said. “We look forward to getting to a trial where we can finish the story.”

Horse meat scandal: Finger-pointing and false trust

Posted on February 15, 2013 by Douglas Powell

Supermarkets in the UK are really, really super mad about the horse meat scandal.

Probably not as mad and violated as consumers, but hey, we’re all in this together right, retailers, consumers, you, me – except only one makes money on the deal.

And how well do retailers know their suppliers?

In a public letter, 11 firms, including Tesco and Asda, said they shared shoppers’ “anger and outrage”.

BBC News reports UK retailers have rejected government criticism they “remained silent” over the horsemeat crisis – as they begin to release test results on beef products.

Earlier, Downing Street said big retailers selling affected products had a responsibility to answer key questions on the scandal.

Sources said it was not “acceptable for retailers to remain silent while customers have been misled about the content of the food they have been buying.”

Meanwhile, the results of up to one third of tests on the presence of horsemeat in processed meals ordered by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are being released.

Whitbread, which supplies thousands of pubs and owns Premier Inn, Beefeater Grill and Brewers Fayre, has confirmed two of its products have been found to contain horsemeat.

Compass Group, one of the biggest school food providers in the UK, says its tests have found between 5% and 30% horse DNA in burgers it sold in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Cottage pie delivered to 47 schools in Lancashire has tested positive for horse DNA. The product has now been withdrawn from kitchens. And beefburgers containing horsemeat had been withdrawn from hospitals in Northern Ireland.

That will be reassuring to parents and patients. You know, consumers, partners.

The French government has accused meat processing company Spanghero of knowingly selling horsemeat labeled as beef. The firm has denied the allegations, but apologized to British consumers, saying it was “tricked as well.”

Further to the arrests made yesterday in Wales and West Yorkshire in relation to suspected fraud, there have been seizures of evidence in Hull and London.

UK Food Safety Authority officers entered an additional three premises in England today with local authorities and the police; one was in Hull and two in Tottenham. Computers and documentary evidence have been removed from these premises, as well as meat samples that have been taken for testing.

FSA has submitted a full file and evidence on this issue to Europol.

France has pinned much of the blame for Europe’s meat scandal on a French firm that allegedly sold 750 tonnes of horsemeat as beef that ended up in millions of ready-to-eat meals sold across the continent.

Agence France-Presse reports Spanghero denied any wrongdoing, saying it had never ordered, received or resold any meat that it did not believe to be beef.

The findings of an investigation by France’s anti-fraud office, presented by the Consumer Affairs Minister, Benoit Hamon, were staggering.

It said Spanghero, a meat-processing firm in the southwestern town of Castelnaudary, had knowingly sold 750 tonnes of horsemeat mislabelled as beef over a period of six months, 500 tonnes of which were sent to French firm Comigel, which makes frozen meals at its Tavola factory in Luxembourg.

That meat was used to make 4.5 million products that were sold by Comigel to 28 companies in 13 European countries, it said.

Mr Hamon said Spanghero would be prosecuted and officials said its licence to handle meat would be suspended pending further investigations.

The minister said that Comigel, which supplied millions of ready-to-eat meals to supermarkets, which have now removed them from their shelves, had been deceived by Spanghero.

But he said Comigel had failed to carry out tests or inspect paperwork that would have alerted it to the scam. He said Romanian abattoirs named in the affair appeared to have acted in good faith.

Audits inspections never enough; arrests in horse fraud

Posted on February 15, 2013 by Douglas Powell

As UK police made arrests at the two food plants raided jointly with the Food Standards Agency on Tues., the uber-witty Economist says “big retailers and producers have brands to protect, so they are vigilant.”

Hilarious.

An audit by Tesco of its suppliers “is one of the most feared and respected things in the industry,” says Michael Walker, a food-safety consultant. “How come it didn’t pick this up?”

Because audits and inspections are never enough.

Why didn’t they do this before? Eastern cantaloupe, mango growers now super serious about food safety

Posted on February 9, 2013 by Douglas Powell

Two unrelated items from The Packer that both beg the question: what took you so long?

The formation of the Eastern Cantaloupe Growers Association follows a string of cantaloupe recalls, including a deadly 2011 listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupe from Jensen Farms, Holly, Colo., and an August multistate outbreak traced to Chamberlain Farms Produce Inc., Owensville, Ind.

Food safety standards adopted by the group are the subject of a Feb. 11 meeting in Atlanta. More than a dozen retailers were anticipated at the meeting.

Growers from Indiana to Florida met in Atlanta in early January to discuss food safety, agreeing to form the association.

To display the group’s seal, growers are required to maintain Global Food Safety Initiative auditing metrics which include water specifications, soil amendments and sanitation and equipment cleaning standards that exceed those mandated by GFSI, Hall said.

Audits from any third-party auditor with GFSI benchmarking is accepted in the program, and growers must have at least one surprise audit during production to ensure adherance to the association’s standards, he said.

Meanwhile, the National Mango Board is inviting growers, packers, handlers and importers to the first mango food safety conference.

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

Most recently, 143 people in Canada and the U.S. were sickened with Salmonella from Mexican mangoes.

Audit says Louisiana restaurant inspections and disclosure are a mess

Posted on November 27, 2012 by Douglas Powell

Louisiana’s regulators of food safety fail to ensure restaurants and other retail food establishments are complying with health standards and allow violators of safety requirements to continue operations, according to a new audit released Monday.

The Office of Public Health issued permits to restaurants that didn’t correct past violations, rarely assesses penalties to violators of safety regulations and doesn’t meet its own inspection standards, the review by Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera‘s office says.

Of nearly 450,000 violations over three years reviewed by auditors, the Office of Public Health levied penalties on two establishments — and didn’t collect any of the $1,300 in penalties assessed.

The agency also doesn’t have standardized criteria for determining when fines should be issued and hasn’t routinely hit repeat violators with penalties or other consequences, according to the audit.

“Overall, OPH’s permitting, inspection and enforcement processes need improvement to ensure the safety of food served in retailed food establishments,” the audit from Purpera’s office says.

The audit says more than 5,800 “high-risk establishments,” 81 percent of the mostly full-service restaurants, weren’t inspected four times a year as the model requires. On average, instead they were visited twice a year during the three-year period reviewed.

Meanwhile, a state-run website that’s supposed to give people an idea of how restaurants are performing in their sanitary inspections doesn’t have complete results available to the public, the review says.

The audit is available at:

http://app1.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/0/7A1222489BEAFEF886257ABC005CCB0B/$FILE/0002DA0A.pdf

barfblog

safe food from farm to fork

Tag Archives: audit