Tag Archives: audit

What keeps you up at night? Experts share their worst food safety nightmares

Posted on by
Reply

Top 5 food safety nightmares for food safety types:

1. Risk management and culture of food safety in small manufacturers

2. Supply chain management and gaps

3. New/upcoming regulations such as GFSI audits and FSMA

4. Physical plant security (and bioterrorism risk)

5. There was only four, but who does a top 4 list?

Food Safety Tech asked members of its advisory board what kept them awake at night, food–safety-wise.

David Acheson, MD, Leavitt Partners, has seen and dealt with all sorts of public health disasters related to food safety during his time at the U.S. Food and Drug administration. But his concern is not just those big disasters, but the lack of adequate controls and understanding of all the risks, especially among the smaller players.

“It’s not the big guys that worry me at night, but the medium guys, who don’t understand all the risks,” says Dr. Acheson, and he attributes this to ignorance rather than malignance.

While big growers and food manufacturers face trouble, they are able to confine it to one part of the company and have the resources—technical, people and money—to tackle those risks and manage them.

Small players need to mobilize resources as an industry to come together and address food safety concerns. For instance the pistachio industry, which suffered a Salmonella outbreak a few years ago, was hit with decreased sales. While the problem in one facility didn’t cause anyone to get sick, it created a widespread perception that pistachios will be tainted with Salmonella, so people stopped buying. But the whole industry—characterized by small suppliers—wanted to raise the bar and by being proactive about food safety, changed that trend.

In smaller companies, the culture of food safety and the perspective of the CEO have a great role to play. Is the culture to be reactive or preventive?

Acheson refers to instances when food safety managers have struggled to get traction with leadership when it comes to paying more attention to food safety initiatives: “Excuses for not doing something proactive can be ‘We have been doing it this way for years and never had any problems; or never had to face an FDA inspection, recalls etc.’”

Donald W. Schaffner at Rutgers University, recently returned from a training session with New Jersey farmers interested in entering the food business.

Probably because of the state of the economy, when companies downsize, or when people consider a change in career, many of them seem to think it can’t be too hard to get into food business.

“Take the instance of Whole Foods Market; they are trying to do the right thing by sourcing locally etc, which inherently means that they are buying from smaller entrepreneurs. And in most cases, such small farmers don’t have food safety systems in place,” points out Schaffner, who also serves as the Director of the Center for Advanced Food Technology.
Schaffner wants to see industry and regulators focusing on what can be done to support the mom-and-pop, smaller farmers and entrepreneurs to put in place safety systems.

Larry Epling, Divisional QA/Food Safety Manager – FPP at Perdue Farms, Inc. said that companies need to expand the scope beyond that of GFSI audits.

“Most of the companies now require GFSI audits. In some cases, we may have the audits in place, but this may not help address a scenario in which the supplier has switched ingredients, because something is cheaper and more easily available. Since it’s the same ingredient, it’s not a labeling issue, but it can still result in compromising the quality of the product, or worse, include hidden allergens that you were unaware of.”

Epling feels while the GFSI audits and requirements are good, the presence of multiple standard-setting organizations (such as SQF Institute and others), all of which mandate different processes and audits, can confuse the industry. He feels that as an industry, there is the need to better understand major suppliers, and not solely rely on third party audits.

Colorado farmers urged to lead in food safety after listeria outbreak

Posted on by
Reply

Larry “Larry” Goodridge (right, exactly as shown) got it right when he said farmers bear primary responsibility for food safety and they shouldn’t rely on third-party audits, but should retroactively fail my risk analysis course for saying Colorado’s response to the listeria-in-cantaloupe outbreak that killed 36 people "was as close to perfect as we are going to see" and that "Our food supply is one of the safest in the world, if not the safest."

Goodridge, an associate professor of food microbiology at Colorado State University, did follow up by telling the Governor’s Forum on Colorado Agriculture yesterday, “But if you were to ask that question of family members who had someone die, they would tell you our food supply is not safe." Lots of people would say the food supply is not safe. Maybe about 48 million of them. Best to keep meaningless rankings out of the equation.

He also said the state could improve by creating a team that activated within hours of an outbreak, and that the government should target spending on high-risk produce — in particular, by educating farmers who grow high-risk produce. More focus on food inspectors isn’t likely to significantly improve the system. Larry urged farmers to focus on sanitary practices such as keeping equipment and storage areas clean. He also urged them to educate the public on ways to safely handle produce in the same manner as consumers are advised how to safely handle meat.

As usual, no details were provided on how best to do this so-called education, for farmers or consumers.

Farm Fresh Direct chief executive Jim Knutzon, said he expects the federal government will write more specific regulations for growing cantaloupe and other produce. Then third-party auditors — hired by farms to inspect their operations — will have to check for specific standards called for by the Food and Drug Administration.

‘Sprouts aren’t necessary for Jimmy John’s to rock;’ chain permanently pulls sprouts from menu?

Posted on by
2

Kirksville, Missouri, is home of Truman State University where Amy completed her undergraduate degree with bad 1980s hair and clothing (even though it was the 1990s), and where we trekked in March 2010 so French scholar Dr. Hubbell could give an invited seminar to her peers and reminisce.

Kirksville seems like a typical Midwest college town, which means the students probably like their Jimmy John’s sandwiches.

Jason Hunsicker of the Kirksville Daily Express reports that Jimmy John’s is making a permanent menu change to put an end to the restaurant’s connection to E. coli outbreaks from raw clover sprouts.

Will Aubuchon, owner and general manager of the Kirksville Jimmy John’s, said an email was sent by "Jimmy himself" late Thursday night ordering all franchise locations to permanently remove raw clover sprouts from their menus.

It’s unclear whether the move applies to all raw sprouts or just clover (and the previously banned alfalfa) sprouts.

The move was made in the wake of an E. coli O26 outbreak that has sickened 12 people in five states, including Missouri. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a release stating an investigation into the outbreak determined the individuals were likely infected from raw clover sprouts they consumed at Jimmy John’s restaurants.

The outbreak was not tied to the Kirksville restaurant and is not a direct result of conditions at any Jimmy John’s restaurants, but instead problems with the company’s supplier of the raw clover sprouts.

"Jimmy decided he was tired of the negative press from it and he thinks sprouts aren’t necessary for Jimmy John’s to rock," Aubuchon said.

Aubuchon said he’s been working with Jimmy John’s for 12 years and it is "kind of weird" to not have sprouts on the menu. He said regular Kirksville customers who ordered sprouts had read recent news reports and temporarily stopped adding the item to their sandwiches.

Now, however, the move will be permanent. Aubuchon expects some customers to be upset, but said he will encourage them to try alternative options like cucumbers. He also anticipates Jimmy John’s will work to add a new vegetable offering to its menus.

Jimmy John’s spokeswoman Mary Trader said on Thursday that the company is not releasing a statement at this time.

With five sprout-related outbreaks since 2008 at Jimmy John’s alone, they should be better at this public relations thing. A table of sprout-related outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/sprouts-associated-outbreaks.

And if sprouts are gone from JJ’s menus, Jimmy may want to think about microbial food safety in general, those deli meats, lettuce and tomatoes. There have been lots of outbreaks and lots of sick people. Maybe this time it won’t have to happen in a Jimmy John’s outlet for the company to reassess what should be on the menu and what is required of suppliers to do business with Jimmy John’s.

Produce that causes outbreaks: who doesn’t suffer from audit fatigue

Posted on by
Reply

Fresh tomato supply chain leaders are – in 2012? — sharpening food safety programs and auditing protocols with a goal of cutting foodborne illnesses linked to their product.

So says The Packer, but shouldn’t that have been done about 15 years ago as evidence accumulated that tomatoes were a frequent culprit in outbreaks of foodborne illness?

As Florida, California and other tomato types met in early Feb., audit fatigue, or numerous audits grower-shippers’ customers often require, remained central in discussions.

“How many standards can you audit to?” asked Billy Heller, chief executive officer of Pacific Tomato Growers Ltd., Palmetto. “Audit fatigue within our group at all levels is unbelievable. We have customers coming behind other customers checking the other audits because they each have their own specs.

Ed Beckman, president of the Certified Greenhouse Vegetable Producers Association of North America, Fresno, Calif., said the debate should be about how tomato food safety metrics reflect science. Beckman, until recently president of Fresno, Calif.-based California Tomato Growers, said the industry seeks collaboration with the FDA and the U.S, Department of Agriculture throughout the audit process.

“This is not growers and customers sitting in a room and defining what our future is,” Beckman said. “We don’t simply pull a number out of the air and throw it in that document and say it’s good.

“… This about bringing people together, sharing ideas, sharing our frustrations with existing audits, auditing and trying to come back with a solution that meets everyone’s needs in a single audit that is based on science.”

During the meetings, growers and buyers discussed customer expectations, additions to the standards and issues such as commingling at repacking operations.

A table of older, fresh tomato-related outbreaks is available at http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/en/article-details.php?a=3&c=32&sc=419&id=953.

Are food safety audits a Ponzi scheme or tool to make food safer?

Posted on by
1

Tomorrow’s USA Today runs competing editorials on the value of food safety audits, with the editorial board coming out swinging referring to the listeria-in-cantaloupe mess that killed at least 30 last year: “You’d think that the deadliest food-borne outbreak in nearly 90 years would change the way business is done in the produce industry. No such luck.”

“The first line of defense remains independent auditors hired by food producers to monitor their performance, much as companies hire outside auditors to certify their financial statements. But just six days before the Colorado outbreak, Jensen’s auditor gave the company stellar ratings.

“The system has an inherent conflict of interest: While retailers generally require audits before buying from a supplier, the suppliers often hire and pay the auditors who evaluate them. It’s like authors hiring their own book reviewers. A similarly flawed system contributed to the nation’s 2008 financial meltdown.

“In 2009, another major auditing firm, AIB International, gave the Peanut Corp. of America a ‘superior rating’ at its Texas plant even as it was churning out salmonella-tainted peanut paste. PCA’S products ultimately sickened 600 people and might have killed as many as nine.

“If retailers paid for audits, as a few do, there’d be more incentive for impartial audits. Retailers could also demand that auditors be assigned randomly to jobs from a pool. That, too, would reduce the conflicts.

“Outbreaks of food-borne illness have prompted change in the past, but only when industries have stepped up to take responsibility.”

The contender or defenderer, Bob Whitaker, chief science and technology officer for the Produce Marketing Association, writes “food safety has always been the highest priority for the people who grow, ship and sell our nation’s fresh fruits and vegetables. Recognizing there is no one solution, we take a holistic approach to food safety, constantly strengthening best practices, identifying knowledge gaps, creating new guidance on growing, handling and processing, and developing new ‘field to fork’ training programs.”

Point for the editorialists on writing effectiveness.

“It is already standard industry practice to rotate auditors to avoid potential familiarity issues. In some cases, it’s the buyer who actually chooses a grower’s auditing firm.”

Another point.

“The concerns about objectivity also assume that the only goal of the grower paying for the audit is to achieve a passing grade. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

And another.

“Audits, like other current safeguards, are one tool among many used to ensure the safety of our fresh produce. Further, audit results are routinely used to improve food safety performance.”

What are the other tools?

“Everyone has a role in food safety. Rather than debate the merits of a single approach, let’s broaden the dialogue and work in partnership with industry, consumers and the government to set the framework to create more effective food safety solutions not only for today, but also tomorrow.”

Whitaker’s on the ropes resorting to the everyone-has-a-role routine. I have no idea how this applies to cantaloupe. He’s out.

While failing to shed much light, having a discussion in the editorial pages of USA Today may mean more shoppers will have heard of this food safety system called audits, and ask more questions before they plunk down their money.

UK meat plants get public scrutiny with cause for concern list

Posted on by
Reply

Scores on Doors was too direct for the Brits, but now they’ve come out with a Cause for Concern scheme to name and shame meat plants that have lousy audits.

It’s part of the UK Food Standards Agency ongoing commitment to openness and transparency to regularly publish audit reports of approved meat plants in England, Scotland and Wales (audit here means those done by government inspectors, rather than third-parties; but I could be wrong, it’s not clear).

Cause for concern is a process developed in response to Professor Pennington’s report on the 2005 E. coli outbreak in Wales, which recommended that there needed to be improved management oversight of poorer performing meat plants. The process makes it clear which plants need to improve their standards to ensure risks to public health are kept to a minimum.

There are currently eight premises on the list. This will be updated, initially on a weekly basis, to reflect changes as meat plants move on or off the list.

Tim Smith, Chief Executive of the FSA, said, “If our inspectors decided that hygiene standards in a plant are so poor that public health could be at imminent risk, we would immediately stop that plant from operating. However, for those businesses that could improve quickly by following our advice, we hope that publication of this list will push them to raise their game and get off the list.”

Don’t bring me down; California cantaloupe growers going government way, want state marketing order

Posted on by
Reply

Is government inspection better at ensuring safe produce?

Steve Patricio, Chairman of the California Cantaloupe Advisory Board, provided the following statement today during a Cantaloupe Food Safety press conference:

"The California cantaloupe industry has never been associated with a foodborne illness outbreak. However, in the past 20 years, the California cantaloupe industry has invested in research to ensure our growing, harvesting and packing practices are the safest possible. We were the first commodity group to work with government agencies, scientists and food safety experts to craft Commodity Specific Guidance for Melons and we are 100 percent committed to continuing work to improve the existing guidance and to funding new priority research projects that will lead to a safer product for consumers.

"In keeping with the leadership position we have always taken with respect to food safety, the California Cantaloupe Advisory Board is pledging today to move forward to establish a mandatory state marketing order with government oversight to focus on food safety in the production of California cantaloupe. We are asking for and anticipate participation from other western cantaloupe producing regions and we hope that other cantaloupe producers around the world will follow our lead."

"We are taking this step for two reasons — first because it is the right thing to do. Consumers must be assured that our products are safe. Additionally, it was made clear by the participants at yesterdays Center for Produce Safety working symposium that the trade is demanding nothing less than a program based upon mandatory government inspections. The California cantaloupe industry intends to quickly act and to have such a program in place prior to the coming harvest season."

Can I get that in writing? Listeria outbreak report reeks of swarminess; melon farmers blame auditors/buyers who blame regulators

Posted on by
Reply

There’s plenty of swarminess to go around in a new report by the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on the listeria-in-cantaloupe outbreak of 2011.

That’s what happens when 30 (or 31) people are killed, 1 suffers a miscarriage and at least 146 are sickened from eating some fruit.

The report concludes the outbreak could have been avoided if Jensen Farms of Colorado had maintained its facilities in accordance with existing guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is not mandatory.

This is nothing new. FDA has been issuing guidance on how to produce safe produce since 1998 and, like spinach and leafy greens and tomatoes, cantaloupe growers now have to act like, oh, we didn’t know.

Fortunately, the vast majority of cantaloupe growers do know how to produce safe product. But any commodity is only as good as its worst performer. Which is why verification matters, and once again, audits, as currently designed, aren’t up to the task.

Not mentioned in the report is the devastating effect the outbreak had on individuals, families, other growers and the flaws in relying on others – in food safety they’re called auditors — to check things out.

Here’s what the various players told the Congressional investigators:

FDA officials cited several deficiencies in Jensen Farms’ facility, which reflected a general lack of awareness of food safety principles and may have contributed to the outbreak, including:

• condensation from cooling systems draining directly onto the floor;
• poor drainage resulting in water pooling around the food processing equipment;
• inappropriate food processing equipment which was difficult to clean (i.e., Listeria found on the felt roller brushes);
• no antimicrobial solution, such as chlorine, in the water used to wash the cantaloupes; and,
• no equipment to remove field heat from the cantaloupes before they were placed into cold storage.

FDA emphasized to Committee staff that the processing equipment and the decision not to chlorinate the water used to wash the cantaloupes were two probable causes of the contamination.

Primus Labs has audited Jensen Farms during the course of Jensen Farms’ relationship with Frontera Produce, beginning in 2003. Primus Labs hired a subcontractor, Bio Food Safety, Inc., to conduct its recent audits of Jensen Farms. On August 5, 2010, Jerry Walzel, the President of Bio Food Safety, audited the Jensen Farms packing facility and gave it a 95% grade – a “superior” rating, despite finding several major and minor deficiencies.

One precaution that Jensen Farms took in 2010, which it dropped in 2011, was to use an antimicrobial solution, such as chlorine, in the cantaloupe wash water. The front page of the August 2010 audit stated, “[t]his facility packs fresh cantaloupes from their own fields into cartons. The melons are washed and then run through a hydro cooler which has chlorine added to the water. Once the product is dried and packed into cartons it is placed into coolers.” After the August 2010 audit was completed, one of the Jensen brothers informed Mr. Walzel that they were interested in improving their processes. According to Jensen Farms, in response to this inquiry, Mr. Walzel indicated that they should consider new equipment to replace the hydrocooler the farm used to process cantaloupe. Mr. Walzel stated that the hydrocooler, with its recirculating water, was a potential food safety “hotspot,” and advised them to consider alternate equipment. Based on his comments, and input from a local equipment broker, Jensen Farms purchased and retrofitted equipment previously used to process potatoes.

The Jenson brothers stated that they changed from the hydrocooler to the new food processing equipment in an attempt to strengthen their food safety efforts.
Jensen Farms stated that they contracted with Primus Labs to perform an audit in July 2011. Again, Primus Labs subcontracted with Bio Food Safety to conduct the audit. Mr. Walzel did not conduct this audit; a new auditor from Bio Food Safety, James Dilorio, conducted the audit on July 25, 2011, and, after spending approximately four hours inspecting the facility, gave Jensen Farms a 96% grade – again a “superior” rating. Despite this high rating, Mr. Dilorio identified several deficiencies, including three “major deficiencies”: (1) wood (which can house bacteria and cause splinters) covered the unloading and packing tables, (2) lack of hot water at hand washing stations, and (3) doors left open during operating hours, potentially allowing pests to enter the facility.

Jensen Farms noted that it received a visit from a representative of Frontera Produce, its distributor, shortly before the 2011 audit. According to the Jensen brothers, this representative provided them with advice about preparing for the audit, but did not note any problems. Jensen Farms informed Committee staff that quality control representatives from various retailers have visited the farm as well. The Jensen brothers stated that based on these inspections and their prior food safety record, they had no concerns about their operations prior to the recent outbreak.

Will Steele and Amy Gates, the CEO and executive vice president of Frontera Produce, told Committee staff that they had visited Jensen Farms to inspect its facilities and provide business advice and both were critical of the current standards for third-party audits and had concerns about inadequate standards.
Ms. Gates indicated that there is “no industry standard for validation points” after an audit, while Mr. Steele stated that “this is the industry standard. I’ve always believed there’s got to be more validation points. This case clearly demonstrates that.”

Robert Stovicek, president of Primus Labs told Committee staff that his company’s role is to conduct an impartial assessment of a client’s operations and provide its findings to the client. He stated that the audits are intended to assess whether the client’s operations are in compliance with current baseline industry standards—not to improve those standards or push a client towards best practices. Mr. Stovicek said that Primus Labs would “be a rogue element if they tried to pick winners and losers” by holding industry to higher standards. He also said that Primus Labs did not have the “expertise to determine which best practices should be pushed by the industry.”

Jerry Walzel, the president of Bio Food Safety, told the Committee that – consistent with Primus Labs policy – the audits only deducted from the score if a method or technique was inconsistent with FDA regulations; they did not deduct from the score if FDA guidance was not being followed. … He stated that Bio Food Safety auditors were “roped in by regulation and Primus training,” and that “guidelines are opinions…. regulations are law.”

Additionally, he noted, “we are not supposed to be opinionated on this, we are supposed to go by FDA’s regulations… FDA should have mandated that you cannot sell cantaloupes that have not been sanitized.”

According to Frontera Produce, in response to the outbreak, many major retailers have already instituted end-product testing of cantaloupe to identify Listeria, Salmonella and other pathogens. Frontera Produce officials also informed Committee staff that retailers and industry groups are studying the possible implementation of additional checks at different critical control points in the supply chain, including risk-based assessments and sample testing. Primus Labs noted, and FDA confirmed, that buyers will immediately start requiring auditors to take environmental swabs while auditing food facilities.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver, also asked the FDA to step up regulation of outside auditors, who they say bring numerous "conflicts of interest" to the food safety system. Excerpts from their letter are below:

The investigation identified significant problems with the third-party inspection system used by growers and distributors to ensure the safety of fresh produce, This auditing system is often the first and only line of defense against a deadly foodborne disease outbreak. …

Our investigation reveals some of the reasons why: the auditors’ findings were not based on the practices of the best farms and failed to ensure that the producer met FDA guidance; the auditors missed or failed to prioritize important food safety deficiencies; the auditors lacked any regulatory authority and did not report identified problems to the FDA or other state or federal authorities; the auditors did not ensure that identified problems were resolved; and the auditors provided advance notice of site visits and spent only a short period of time on-site. It also became apparent in the investigation that the auditors had multiple conflicts of interest.

The problems identified in the audits of Jensen Farms are similar to those that the Committee identified in food safety investigations in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, following the Salmonella outbreak in peanut butter products sold by the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), a Committee investigation revealed that a private, for-profit auditing firm gave the company glowing reviews (step forward American Institute of Baking). The auditor, AlB, was selected by PCA, it was paid by PCA, and it reported to PCA. The auditor awarded a "superior" rating to the company’s plant. Six months after the audit, PCA’s products killed nine people and sickened 691 people .

In 2010, the Committee’s investigation into an outbreak of Salmonella in eggs produced by Wright County Egg revealed the same problems with third-party audits. Following the outbreak, federal officials inspected Wright County Egg facilities and found serious violations of food safety standards, including barns infested with mice, chicken manure piled eight feet high, and uncaged hens tracking through excrement. There were very different results when Wright County Egg farms were inspected by AlB. AlB gave Wright County Egg an award two months before the outbreak, rating them "superior" and awarding the company a "recognition of achievement.”

Weaknesses in third-party auditors represent a significant gap in the food safety system because the auditors are often the only entities to inspect a farm or facility. … Like it or not.our food safety system relies heavily on third party auditors to identify dangerous practices and prevent contaminated foods from reaching the market.

 

Repeat: rapid repeated reliable relevant food safety messages; repeat

Posted on by
Reply

Florida has only a few restaurants with flawless inspection scores, and chefs who run them offer some tough advice: Hire outside inspectors, treat the ice machine as a potential felon and become fanatical about details that others overlook.

Mark Brown, executive chef of The Sanctuary Golf Club on Sanibel Island, one of just a half-dozen kitchens to earn perfect inspection scores this past autumn, told Richard Mullins of Tampa Bay Online, "Are the Coke machine nozzles clean? Is the ice machine maintained? Are the trash cans clean? Because when you drag them through a kitchen, they’re a great way to transport waste and disease. This is something you have to train on every single day, over and over. … My first year here, I think the staff was ready to hang me."

To avoid that fate, the most rigorous restaurant operators get out front of the health department inspections. They contract private companies for extra inspections, with standards much tougher than the government’s.

"The good restaurants know the most important thing is to make the customer happy," said Beth Cannon, associate director of quality assurance for the inspection company Steritech Group Inc.

While some restaurants refrigerate soup in 5-gallon buckets, Brown said that’s far too large a container to cool down enough to prevent bacteria growth. So his chefs seal and date soup in small bags, and soak them in ice water before storage in the refrigerator.

With potentially risky items like oysters, his kitchen keeps records on every one for a year, so any problems can be tracked back to a particular harvester.

Cross-contamination happens in even the smallest instances.

For instance, if a dish-washing employee sprays off plates, loads them in the dishwashing machine and then forgets to wash his hands when unloading the machine, he’ll track potential illnesses to the clean plates.

If a kitchen worker stacks boxes of vegetables on the floor, those boxes will track germs from the floor into the refrigerator.

If a chef prepares patties of raw hamburger, even while wearing gloves, and wipes his hands on his apron, he can track potential bacteria and germs into the "hot" side of the kitchen when grilling burgers.

If a salad chef accidentally touches his nose and then grabs a head of lettuce, he can potentially transfer hepatitis A.
Training a kitchen full of employees on all the right practices isn’t simple, particularly with the high turnover in the restaurant industry.

Five Guys uses Steritech for periodic inspections, but it also employs "mystery eaters" to review each location at least twice a week, grading everything from the bathroom floors to the quality of the fries, said Jo Jo Jiampetti, a regional vice president for Five Guys in Tampa.

"You have to teach every day what the standards are, and hold everyone accountable."

Five years after E. coli outbreak, Salinas Valley farmers struggle to rebound

Posted on by
Reply

 Woe is the California lettuce and spinach grower.

"It was just more regulations. More inspections. More paperwork. More filings. More fees," said Chris Bunn, part of a four-generation Salinas Valley farming family. Now in his 60s, he quit two years after the 2006 outbreak. "I miss it terribly," Bunn said. "It was a wonderful business."

Deborah Schoch, a senior writer at the California HealthCare Foundation Center for Health Reporting, writes in the Mercury News today that five years after their healthy-looking green fields became the epicenter of a national food disaster, farmers in the Salinas Valley are still working to regain something even the most bountiful harvest can’t ensure: the public’s trust.

They are doing their best to rebound after investigators linked spinach grown and bagged here to a deadly E. coli strain that would kill three people, sicken 206 more and shake the nation’s faith in California leafy greens. So far, they have succeeded in avoiding another major outbreak.

Last year, Monterey County produced spinach worth $127.5 million, down from $188.2 million in 2005, according to reports from the county agricultural commissioner’s office.

Salinas Valley growers and processors have retooled nearly every step in their industry — from planting seedlings to harvesting and washing greens. They have rallied to create a state-industry pact on how to protect 14 types of leafy greens that is being held up as a national model.

"It was the watershed moment for the produce industry," said Joe Pezzini, chief operating officer of Ocean Mist Farms in Castroville.

Too bad it didn’t happen 10 years earlier.

In October, 1996, a 16-month-old Denver girl drank Smoothie juice manufactured by Odwalla Inc. of Half Moon Bay, California. She died several weeks later; 64 others became ill in several western U.S. states and British Columbia after drinking the same juices, which contained unpasteurized apple cider — and E. coli O157:H7. Investigators believed that some of the apples used to make the cider might have been insufficiently washed after falling to the ground and coming into contact with deer feces.

Almost 10 years later, on Sept. 14, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that an outbreak of E. coli O157: H7 had killed a 77-year-old woman and sickened 49 others (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2006). The FDA learned from the Centers for Disease Control and Wisconsin health officials that the outbreak may have been linked to the consumption of produce and identified bagged fresh spinach as a possible cause.

In the decade between these two watershed outbreaks, almost 500 outbreaks of foodborne illness involving fresh produce were documented, publicized and led to some changes within the industry, yet what author Malcolm Gladwell would call a tipping point — "a point at which a slow gradual change becomes irreversible and then proceeds with gathering pace"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_Point) — in public awareness about produce-associated risks did not happen until the spinach E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in the fall of 2006. At what point did sufficient evidence exist to compel the fresh produce industry to embrace the kind of change the sector has heralded since 2007? And at what point will future evidence be deemed sufficient to initiate change within an industry?

In 1996, following extensive public and political discussions about microbial food safety in meat, the focus shifted to fresh fruits and vegetables, following an outbreak of Cyclospora cayetanesis ultimately linked to Guatemalan raspberries that sickened 1,465 in 21 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997), and subsequently Odwalla. That same year, Beuchat (1996) published a review on pathogenic microorganisms in fresh fruits and vegetables and identified numerous pathways of contamination.

By 1997, researchers at CDC were stating that pathogens could contaminate at any point along the fresh produce food chain — at the farm, processing plant, transportation vehicle, retail store or foodservice operation and the home — and that by understanding where potential problems existed, it was possible to develop strategies to reduce risks of contamination. Researchers also reported that the use of pathogen-free water for washing would minimize risk of contamination.

Yet it would take a decade and some 29 leafy green-related outbreaks before spinach in 2006 became a tipping point.

What was absent in this decade of outbreaks, letters from regulators, plans from industry associations and media accounts, was verification that farmers and others in the farm-to-fork food safety system were seriously internalizing the messages about risk, the numbers of sick people, and translating such information into front-line food safety behavioral change.

Today, according to  Schoch, major food and retail chains, from McDonald’s to Walmart, want proof that their lettuce is as clean as any natural product can be.

That means no cattle grazing uphill from a spinach farm, no roaming wild pigs, no farm crews without hairnets or gloves, no missing reports.

Some food chains even send inspectors unannounced.

"They’ll be the Toyota Camry with the Hertz sticker on the edge of the field, looking with binoculars," said Mike Dobler, 50, a third-generation grower who works with his family on a large-scale vegetable farm based in Watsonville.

"They’re looking to see if you’re doing what you say you’re doing," Dobler said.

Before September 2006, he said, "we were taken at our word, and nobody asked."

Actually, lots of people asked, including FDA, state public health types, journalists, lawyers and academics. Growers apparently just didn’t pay attention.

A table of leafy green related outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/leafy-greens-related-outbreaks (they didn’t all originate with California produce, but lots did).