Roy Costa: How to improve produce safety

How can the system of audits and marginal inspections be improved to make fresh produce safer?

With 29 dead and 139 from listeria in cantaloupe, the question has taken on new urgency, although that cycles – many in the farm-to-fork food safety system have exceedingly poor memories once product is flowing again, with prevention soon relegated to nostalgia. Remember the outbreak of 1996? 2006? 2011? (insert date and commodity here).

Roy Costa writes in his Food Safety & Environmental Health Blog that third party audits are best implemented when there are regulatory controls over the audited operations, thus underpinning  them.

Costa concludes the best alternatives to improve produce safety and the third party audit process may include:

• buyer financing and coordination of the audit;
• unannounced audits;
• Food and Drug Administration involvement in the third party audit process including training and oversight;
• risk-based frequencies of regulatory compliance inspections, 2nd and 3rd party audits, and reassessments based on severity;
• transparency of all audit and inspection findings by all concerned;
• validated microbial standards; and,
• expanded use of 1st and 2nd party audits.

The complete article is available here.

Food safety audits: worthwhile, if done correctly

Melvin N. Kramer, president, EHA Consulting Group, Inc., writes that over the past several years, and clearly over the past several weeks, there has been increased interest, criticism, and a general sense of a conundrum in reference to the reliability, reproducibility, validity, and general worthiness of a third-party audit.

Many people with varying interests have weighed in with a lot of facts, few figures, and a fair amount of speculation. We believe, and have even published, that the key to an appropriate assessment from a third-party audit starts with the qualification and experience of the auditor. As long as there are firms that are recruiting and sending out on third-party audits individuals with minimum credentials, such as the one we found on one company’s website, “high school diploma, or equivalent, plus ten (10) years food processing experience (food plant experience in a responsible food safety position),” then these audits are doomed to be a potentially harmful and indeed can be worthless.

However, if the third-party auditor is properly trained, schooled, and credentialed in food safety and microbiology (a bachelor’s degree, with a minimum of thirty credits in the biological/environmental sciences), then third-party audits can be an extraordinary good tool to be used by industry in assessing, to assure that the health and well-being of the consumer is not going to be compromised.

When conflicts of interest arise, anywhere, there is always cause for concern. Some of these conflicts of interest are present in the auditing firm, when companies sell laboratory services, pest control services, chemicals, or other services, and the third-party audit becomes a lost leader, just like a can of peas in a supermarket, selling for far under the fair market value.

In 2009, we posted a blog on our website, which is as true today as it was then, and we clearly welcome others to revisit it and continue this important dialog.

A good working definition of public health is preventative medicine in action.

 

Food safety audits ‘worthless, give false sense of security’

"You can make these audits useful by writing them on toilet paper. Then someone would at least use them. They’re worthless. They give a false sense of security."

That’s what the usually colorful Mansour Samadpour, president of Lake Forest Park, Wash.-based IEH Laboratories and Consulting Group, told Stephanie Armour of the Daily Herald in a story about the Jensen Farms linked listeria-in-cantaloupe outbreak that has killed 29 and sickened 139.

But not everyone agrees.

Jim Prevor, a food industry analyst in Boca Raton, Fla., says, "The auditing system has helped improved food safety a great deal. Critics are too ready to dismiss the whole system."

Jensen Farms’ packing house achieved a score of 96 percent, high enough to be ranked "superior," according to a copy of the July 25 audit by Primus Group Inc., which does business as PrimusLabs in Santa Maria, Calif., and subcontracted the review to another party.

The facility achieved total compliance for having "floor surfaces in good condition with no standing water," according to the audit. Deficiencies found included no hot water at hand- washing stations and no documented record of training on food- security issues.

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration review of Jensen Farms after the outbreak concluded the building "allowed for water to pool on the floor near equipment and employee walkways" creating conditions that might spread listeria. The agency also found widespread contamination and unsanitary practices.

There are no generally accepted standards for the private audits and criteria may vary from inspector to inspector, said David Theno, chief executive officer of Del Mar, Calif.-based Gray Dog Partners Inc., which provides senior-level food safety and quality consultants.

Costco, based in Issaquah, Wash., sends its own auditors as well as third-party inspectors to suppliers and has in cases refused food products because problems were uncovered, said Craig Wilson, head of food safety at the warehouse club chain, in an interview. The rejected food included a seven-layer dip, eggs, dog biscuits and a hummus product, he said.

The audit at Jensen Farms was required by Edinburg, Texas- based Frontera Produce, which arranged buyers for the cantaloupe, Jim Mulhern, a spokesman for Frontera, said in an interview. Jensen Farms selected the auditor and paid for the review, he said.

"In the wake of this experience, we are examining the role of audits and looking at possible changes," Mulhern said in an email. Frontera is looking into whether more steps are needed to validate findings, such as follow-up audits, he said.

Enough back and forth. How best to improve the overall food safety system, including audits, and especially in the wild west of fresh produce?

On the bandwagon; food safety culture compliments audits, testing at Texas produce firms

Pamela Riemenschneider of The Packer writes that audits, testing and food safety programs are a part of daily life for any produce operation.

In the Rio Grande Valley, companies work to foster a culture of food safety among their employees.

“One of the challenges of a food safety program is to not treat it as if you’re studying for the test, but to accept it and embrace it as a way of doing business,” said Chris Eddy, general manager of Edinburg, Texas-based Frontera Produce Ltd.

“That’s our focus, and we’re seeing a lot of success there and getting a buy-in from our employees.”

That “it’s time for our annual audit, let’s do an extra sweep” attitude is long gone.

The company is spreading this culture out to all of the sheds it operates and represents, Eddy said.

Curtis DeBerry, president of Boerne, Texas-based Progreso Produce Ltd., said his company is rolling out in-house microbial testing in addition to its regular audits and Global Food Safety Initiative certification.

“We’ve gone completely out on our own,” he said.

“We’re doing the microbial testing in-house weekly. We’re going to step it up and be much more involved in the testing itself and the auditing in between, both in our facilities and out in the fields.”

DeBerry said his company’s enhanced focus was driven by the buyer community and Progreso’s decision to enhance the program.

At Bebo Distributing Inc. in Pharr, Texas, the packing lines are getting mechanical enhancements in the name of food safety.

The company recently installed a new packing line that includes a chlorine wash.

All this sounds great and shows how food safety requires numerous flexible and creative approaches. But why weren’t these firms and thousands of others actively enhancing the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables in the 1990s, when produce had clearly emerged as a significant source of foodborne illness?

Additional voices on food safety audits

The Denver Post also weighs in this morning on the role of third-party food safety auditors in the wake of the listeria-in-cantaloupe outbreak – big thumbs up from the auditor just before the outbreak.

It was only the latest incident when a "third-party" audit — slammed as an inherent conflict of interest by safety experts — failed to note deadly mistakes in a food operation.

• Nine people died and thousands were sickened after a salmonella outbreak at
Peanut Corporation of America in late 2008. Investigators found goods were shipped despite positive pathogen tests, as well as rodents, leaking roofs and extensive mold. An auditor before the outbreak gave the company the "superior" nod.

• FDA inspectors found filthy conditions, from overflowing manure to maggot infestations, at two Iowa farms where hundreds of millions of eggs were recalled last year. Court files show "Record of Achievement" audit certificates before the salmonella outbreaks.

• Earthbound Farm regularly got passing audits before an E. coli outbreak in greens was traced to the farm. The 2006 outbreak sickened hundreds and contributed to three deaths.

• In 2007, after an E. coli outbreak was traced to frozen beef patties from Topps Meat in New Jersey, federal inspectors found multiple problems. The company’s vice president questioned "why and how personnel from his company, outside auditors or consultants failed to find these noncompliances," according to a 2007 USDA document.

• And in a 2007 salmonella outbreak linked to Veggie Booty snacks, a third-party audit swabbed the manufacturing plant for salmonella but found none. Federal inspectors later found the bacteria in snack seasoning.

Grocers are re-examining their supply systems in the wake of 28 deaths and cantaloupe’s ruined reputation as a result of the Jensen Farms listeria.

Costco will require its cantaloupes to pass a "test and hold" program before they make it to the produce department, meaning a few sample cantaloupes per shipment will be swabbed for bacteria. The load won’t ship until lab tests clear.

"That is greatly going to improve the overall food quality in the marketplace," said Craig Wilson, head of safety for the retailer.

Costco uses just nine third-party auditors out of the 120 to 130 available, Wilson said. Every food item in Costco stores comes from a producer inspected by one of those nine auditors.

"The real key to this is audit-company responsibility," he said. "Are they going to step in and help sort out the problem?"

Other grocery store chains were less willing to answer questions about their use of private auditors. Walmart and Safeway officials said they were always looking for ways to improve food safety but wouldn’t elaborate.

Killer cantaloupe facility got big thumbs up from auditor days before outbreak; what retailers relied on those audits? 25 dead, 123 sick means more required than faith-based food safety

 “The contributions of third-party audits to food safety is the same as the contribution of mail-order diploma mills to education. … I have not seen a single company that has had an outbreak or recall that didn’t have a series of audits with really high scores.”
– Mansour Samadpour, president, IEH Laboratories, Seattle

“No one should rely on third-party audits to insure food safety.”
– Will Daniels, food safety, Earthbound Farm

Billions of meals are served safely each day throughout the world. Much of that food is verified as safe by some form of third-party auditor. Yet when outbreaks of foodborne illness happen, the results can be emotionally, physically and financially devastating. And almost all outbreaks involve firms that have received glowing endorsements from food safety auditors.

Food safety auditors are an integral part of the food safety system, and their use will expand in the future, for both domestic and imported foodstuffs. How then to make third-party audits more meaningful, more accurate, and to fully enhance the safety of consumers?

There is a long and spectacular history of food safety failures involving third-party audits (and inspections). Many foodborne illness outbreaks have been linked to farms, processors and retailers that went through some form of certification. The U.S. Government Accountability Office noted in a 2008 report that, while inspectors play an active role in overseeing compliance, the burden for food safety lies primarily with food producers.

In late Oct. 1996, an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 was traced to juice containing unpasteurized apple cider manufactured by Odwalla in the northwest U.S. Sixty-four people were sickened and a 16-month-old died from E. coli O157:H7. During subsequent grand jury testimony, it was revealed that while Odwalla had written contracts with suppliers to only provide apples picked from trees rather than drops – those that had fallen to the ground and would be more likely to be contaminated with feces, in this case deer feces – the company never bothered to verify if suppliers were actually doing what they said they were doing.

Earlier in 1996, Odwalla had sought to supply the U.S. Army with juice. An Aug. 6, 1996 letter from the Army to Odwalla stated, “we determined that your plant sanitation program does not adequately assure product wholesomeness for military consumers. This lack of assurance prevents approval of your establishment as a source of supply for the Armed Forces at this time.”

Five-year-old Mason Jones was one of 157 people – primarily children – who became ill in an outbreak in South Wales caused by E. coli O157:H7 in September 2005. The outbreak was traced to the consumption of cooked meats provided to schools by John Tudor & Son, a catering butcher business. A packaging machine at the business, used for both raw and cooked meats, was identified as the probable source of contamination – where E. coli O157:H7 was most likely transferred from raw meat to cooked meat that was then distributed to four authorities in South Wales for their school meal programs. The 2005 outbreak was the largest caused by E. coli O157:H7 in Wales and the second largest in the United Kingdom to date; ultimately 31 people were admitted to hospital and, tragically, Mason Jones died.

A public inquiry into the outbreak determined that William Tudor, the proprietor of John Tudor & Son, had a significant disregard for food safety and thus for the health of people who consumed meats produced and distributed by his business. The inquiry heard that there had been serious, and repeated, breaches of federal food safety regulations at the catering butcher business. William Tudor had failed to ensure that critical procedures, such as cleaning and the separation of raw and cooked meats, were carried out effectively. He also falsified certain records that were an important part of food safety practice and deceived Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) on issues such as the use of the packaging machine. The business’s Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan was also found to be poorly designed, inaccurate and misleading.

Although foodborne illness may not always be completely preventable, my food safety culture colleague Chris Griffith concluded that the risk of a business causing foodborne illness is, to a large extent, a consequence of its own activities (and its auditors and inspectors).

In Sept. 2006, 199 people were sickened and at least three died from E. coli O157:H7 in bagged spinach produced by Earthbound Farms of California. Samples of river water, wild pig feces, and cattle feces tested positive for the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7, and infected feces of nearby grass-fed cattle were found on one of the four fields where the contaminated spinach was grown, under organic production standards, in Salinas Valley. There was no verification that farmers and others in the farm-to-fork food safety system were seriously adapting to the messages about risk and the numbers of sick people, and then translating such information into behavioral changes that enhanced front-line food safety practices, especially in production fields rather than just processing facilities.

On June 28, 2007 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a statement warning consumers not to eat Veggie Booty snack food because it had been linked to an outbreak of salmonella.

In July the FDA found Salmonella Wandsworth in the snacks, reconfirming Veggie Booty was the source of the outbreak, after the Minnesota Agricultural Lab had already backed up the epidemiologic evidence with laboratory testing. At the same time, they advised consumers not to eat another product from the same company, Super Veggie Tings Crunchy Corn Sticks, because they might be contaminated as well. Preliminary investigations suggested the seasoning mix might have been the actual source of contamination. The company said the seasoning ingredients came from China, shifting the blame to a country which had failed quality and safety standards for nearly one fifth of their products at the time. A total of 23 states were affected and 69 people became sick.

The plant that made Veggie Booty had received a rating of “excellent” from the American Institute of Baking, raising questions about the efficacy of auditors, which did not extend to ingredient suppliers.

In August 2008, Listeria monocytogenes-contaminated deli meats produced by Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. of Canada caused 57 illnesses and ultimately resulting in 23 deaths. A panel of international food safety experts convened by Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. to investigate the source of the deli meat contamination determined that the most probable contamination source was commercial meat slicers that, despite cleaning according to the manufacturer’s instructions, had meat residue trapped deep inside the slicing mechanisms. The meat residue provided a reservoir and breeding ground for L. monocytogenes. An independent investigative review commissioned by the Canadian federal government provided 57 recommendations to prevent similar outbreaks in the future, reflecting the broad findings of the review: that the focus on food safety was insufficient among senior management at both the company and the various government organizations involved before and during the outbreak; that insufficient planning had been undertaken to be prepared for a potential outbreak; and that those involved lacked a sense of urgency at the outset of the outbreak.

The plant linked to the outbreak received satisfactory marks for complying with federal regulatory requirements. Employees consistently addressed instances of non-compliance when they were identified. The plant’s management maintained all required records, ensured that staff training took place, and ensured the established quality assurance program was followed. At all plants, the company conducted environmental testing that went beyond regulatory requirements. Prior to the outbreak, Maple Leaf Foods, Inc. conducted more than 3,000 environmental tests annually at the implicated plant and tested products monthly. Although no product tests revealed the presence of Listeria spp., a number of environmental samples detected the bacteria in the months before the public was alerted in August to possible contamination. However, the company failed to recognize and identify the underlying cause of a sporadic yet persistent pattern of environmental test results that were positive for Listeria spp. and was not obliged to report the results.

In January 2009, Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) was linked to a growing outbreak across the U.S. caused by Salmonella serotype Typhimurium. On January 9, 2009, the outbreak strain was isolated by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture from an unopened container of King Nut peanut butter – a product manufactured solely by PCA at its facility in Blakely, Georgia. In the ensuing weeks, all peanuts and peanut products processed at Blakely plant since January 1, 2007 were recalled. This included over 3,900 peanut butter and other peanut-containing products from more than 350 companies. PCA supplied peanuts, peanut butter, peanut meal and peanut paste to food processors for use in a wide range of products from cookies, snacks and ice cream to dog treats; to institutions such as hospitals, schools and nursing homes; and directly to consumers through discount retail outlets such as dollar stores. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 691 people were sickened and nine died across 46 U.S. states and in Canada.

Moss and Martin reported in the N.Y. Times that an auditor with the American Institute of baking, based in Manhattan, Kansas, was responsible for evaluating the safety of products produced by PCA. The peanut company knew in advance when the auditors were arriving.

“The overall food safety level of this facility was considered to be: SUPERIOR,” the auditor concluded in his March 27, 2008, report for AIB. A copy of the audit was obtained by The New York Times.

AIB was not alone in missing the trouble at the Peanut Corporation plant in Blakely, Ga. State inspectors also found only minor problems, while a federal team last month uncovered a number of alarming signs, as well as testing records from the company itself that showed salmonella in its products as far back as June 2007.

Nestlé twice inspected PCA plants and chose not to take on PCA as a supplier because it didn’t meet Nestlé’s food-safety standards, according to Nestlé’s audit reports in 2002 and 2006.

“Nestlé audited the Blakely plant in 2002 and rejected it as a supplier. Nestlé’s audit report said the plant needed a "better understanding of the concept of deep cleaning" and failed to adequately separate unroasted raw peanuts from roasted ones. Having them in the same area could allow bacteria on raw nuts to contaminate roasted ones, a risk known as cross-contamination. The plant wasn’t even close to Nestlé’s standards, auditor Richard Hutson said in an interview. Hutson, who now heads quality assurance for several Nestlé divisions, said he shared his concerns with PCA officials at the time, but "they didn’t pursue it" further with Nestlé, he says.”

Kellogg CEO David Mackay testified at a congressional hearing that PCA had been audited by AIB, "the most commonly used auditor in the U.S."

Salmonella in DeCoster eggs in 2010 lead to 2,000 illnesses and the recall of 500 million eggs. They received a superior rating prior to the outbreak from AIB.

That’s a long-winded way of saying, the system of third-party audits can work, but when it fails, it fails spectacularly.

William Neuman of the New York Times reports today the nationwide listeria outbreak that has killed 25 people who ate tainted cantaloupe was probably caused by unsanitary conditions in the packing shed of the Colorado farm where the melons were grown.

Government investigators said that workers had tramped through pools of water where listeria was likely to grow, tracking the deadly bacteria around the shed, which was operated by Jensen Farms, in Granada, Colo. The pathogen was found on a conveyor belt for carrying cantaloupes, a melon drying area and a floor drain, among other places.

This is the part that should give no consumer any confidence:

The farm had passed a food safety audit by an outside contractor just days before the outbreak began. Eric Jensen, a member of the family that runs the farm, said in an e-mail that the auditor had given the packing plant a score of 96 points out of 100.

FDA officials did not criticize the auditor directly. But Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for foods, said the agency intended to establish standards for how auditors should be trained and how audits should be conducted.

The definition of crazy is doing more of the same and expecting a different result: more training will not fix these endemic food safety problems.

Jensen Farms, run by Mr. Jensen and his brother Ryan, had recently acquired a set of used machinery to upgrade the way it washed and dried its cantaloupes. The equipment had been used to clean potatoes and was not intended for use with cantaloupes, officials said. They said the equipment was corroded in places and built in a way that made it difficult to clean and sanitize.

An area used to dry the melons included a cloth cover that could easily have harbored the bacteria, according to a person who discussed the operation with the Jensens.

Officials also said that the cantaloupes had not been adequately cooled before they were placed in refrigerated storage, which could have caused condensation to form on the fruit, creating hospitable conditions for listeria. The bacteria grow well in wet or damp conditions and can also thrive in cold.

Jensen Farms hired an auditor called Primus Labs, based in California, to inspect its facility. Primus gave the job to a subcontractor, Bio Food Safety, which is based in Texas. Jensen and Primus declined to provide a copy of the audit report.
Robert Stovicek, the president of PrimusLabs, said his company had reviewed the audit and found no problems in how it was conducted or in the auditor’s conclusions.

“We thought he did a pretty good job,” Mr. Stovicek said. He said the auditor, James M. DiIorio, has been doing audits for the company since March.

He said that Mr. DiIorio had received two one-week training courses as part of his preparation and had also gone on audits with other auditors.

Asked how Mr. DiIorio could have given high marks to a facility that the F.D.A. described as a breeding ground for listeria, Mr. Stovicek said, “There’s lots of variations as to how people interpret unsanitary conditions.”

Trevor V. Suslow, a professor of food safety at the University of California, Davis, said auditors may give farmers, processors and retailers a false sense of security.

“There needs to be training, certification and auditing of the auditors,” he said.

If third-party auditors and inspectors are part of the food safety solution, then what can be improved? Third-party audits are only one performance indicator but 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. Any and all suppliers should be a key focus.

Food safety at grocery stores after a hurricane

 WWBT in Virginia asks, what do grocers do in the aftermath of a hurricane?

In the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, supermarket Martins had to go through a list of inspections. The store checked the temperature of the foods, then an internal auditor double checked.

"We actually had visits from the health department and the department of agriculture," said Martins Regional Vice President, Jim Scanlon.

Martins passed with flying colors, but not all food stores could be as reliable.

That’s why shoppers like Autumn Harbour who lost power for nearly 5 days takes extra care when filling the cart.

Is food safety auditing about safety or money? GFSI-light?

Irwin Pronk of HACCP By Design (right, pretty much as shown) writes in this contributed piece:

If you are a food processor or retailer and have been insisting that your suppliers become GFSI compliant (Global Food Safety Initiative), beware. Recent information has shown that some certification bodies (auditing firms) are playing loose and fast and plants have been choosing certification bodies based on price alone, compromising the integrity of audits.

When searching for an auditing firm, plants have been asking for two or three quotes. In providing these quotes, some certification bodies are strictly following the Scheme Holders’ (e.g. SQF, BRC or FS22000) formulae for calculating the number of audit days but other, more principled auditing firms realize these too simple calculations do not leave them sufficient time to audit as they should. Thus they add additional time resulting in a higher price. In evaluating the differing quotes, plant management all too often choose the least expensive option knowing they will save money. More importantly, they realize the less time the auditor has, the fewer non-conformances they will find. The result: GFSI-light.

Some auditing firms are becoming known for their lower cost quotes, and the result is an inadequate audit, inadequate control systems and the risk of a facility, process and product not as effectively managed as the customer had expected.

Some food processors have wisely established a relationship with one certification body, selecting a specific group of auditors, and requiring their suppliers use the approved certification body. These firms are finding more consistent and rigorous audits. Be sure you are getting what you are asking for. Do not risk GFSI-light.

Irwin Pronk has worked with over 300 companies to implement food safety and quality assurance programs over the past 15 years. He lives in Fergus, which is near Guelph (that’s in Canada).?
 

Ontario egg inspections lack surprise

My colleague Jim Romahn has started his own blog, Agri 007, and in his latest entry, writes:

There appear to be lots of warnings for egg farmers and grading stations that the enforcers are coming, so few are caught and disciplined.

Take egg quota violations, for example. Egg Farmers of Ontario checks hen numbers when the birds are 23 weeks old. Farmers know when an inspector is coming. If they’re over the limit, they naturally cull their flock to get under the wire. But until then, they could be housing more hens to make more profit.

Take egg grading stations. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency sends advisories that it is coming to check compliance, often a couple of weeks in advance. There may be some merit to advance warning so the company can have its HACCP records ready for inspection, but there is certainly no merit when it comes to checking day-to-day sanitation practices and automated egg grading.

Some retail chains have hired the Guelph Food Technology Centre to conduct audits for them. In these cases, too, there has been advance warning. I am told that signs have gone up in at least one plant to advise staff to practice “zero tolerance” on those days.

The federal and provincial governments have granted egg farmers extraordinary powers over production and pricing, but in return have asked them to provide the public with a steady supply of safe and wholesome eggs. Egg farmers who value supply management and want to retain public trust surely realize that discipline is crucial, especially related to food safety.
The management at Egg Farmers of Ontario is surely aware of the possibility that some members cheat on production limits, so why not have some more surprise inspections? The management is obviously aware now of allegations that cracks have made it into the Grade A table market, posing a risk to food safety, so what has it done?

 

Are all Jimmy John’s ingredients made this way?

Alfalfa sprouts grown in Illinois have sickened at least 112 people in 18 states with salmonella since Nov. 2010, and many of those sick ate the sprouts on Jimmy John’s sandwiches.

On Jan. 3, 2011, in a separate outbreak, health officials fingered clover sprouts produced by Sprouters Northwest, Inc. of Kent, Wash. as the source of a separate salmonella outbreak that has sickened three in Oregon and four in Washington. Once again, the vehicle in at least some of the illnesses was Jimmy John’s sandwiches with sprouts.

In mid-Jan. 2011, John Liautaud, the owner of the Jimmy John’s sandwich shop chain, said his restaurants will be replacing alfalfa sprouts with allegedly easier-cleaned clover sprouts, effective immediately.

Mr. Liautaud, perhaps you should inspect your suppliers. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration did that at the Sprouter’s Northwest facility and found:

• failure to take necessary precautions to protect against contamination of food and food contact surfaces with microorganisms and foreign substances;
• failure to clean food-contact surfaces as frequently as necessary to protect against contamination of food;
• failure to clean non-food-contact surfaces of equipment as frequently as necessary to protect against contamination;
• effective measures not being taken to protect against contamination of food on the premises by pests;
• failure to properly store equipment, remove litter and waste, and cut weeds or grass that may constitute an attractant, breeding place or harborage area for pests, within the immediate vicinity of the plant, building, or structures;
• failure to maintain buildings, fixtures, or other physical structures in a sanitary condition;
• failure to hold raw materials in bulk or suitable containers so as to protect against contamination; and,
• failure to maintain buildings and physical facilities in repair sufficient to prevent food from becoming adulterated.

The original table of North American raw sprout-related outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/sprout-associated-outbreaks-north-america-1990-2009.