Food Safety Talk 140: Dr. Linda is a Friend of Mine

Posted on November 28, 2017 by Ben Chapman

In this episode Don and Ben are joined by Gordon Hayburn from Trophy Foods. Gordon talks about his experiences in food safety, focusing on his time in the food industry, and his expertise in audits.

Episode 140 can be found here and on iTunes.

Show notes below so you can follow along at home.

Coaching hockey, uni, what’s the difference

Posted on November 15, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Hello barfbloggers:

It’s been a few of days since I’ve posted anything original – foodborne illnesses happens, kids have hockey awards banquets, I have to coach hockey and complete my level II coaching accreditation, but does anything really change?

And what is it about great leaders that can inspire change so people don’t barf so much?

I’ve done the level II hockey coaching before in Canada, about 15 years ago.

I’ve now done it Australia.

Both are as valid as food safety audits.

Yet the time — 27 hours for level II coach in Australia – is an opportunity to reflect, to really think, how can coaches on a Sunday morning take 20 5-11-year-olds on half ice and make them engaged for 90 minutes (and then have to play a 60-minute game in the afternoon).

This is the shit they should be teaching profs, but don’t, they just pawn it off on grad students with no instruction manual.

And unis wonder why parents are pissed about fees.

When people ask me what I do, I say I used to be a food safety professor,I coach hockey. In Brisbane.

It took me awhile, but I’m glad Amy stuck with me and I made the move.

It wasn’t easy.

Neither is doing a Tony Esposito butterfly at 54.

I’ll be out with the 20-somethings full of testosterone (but not much skill) wed. night, and coaching the same crew sat. at 6 a.m.

That’s hockey times.

That’s how we roll.

Is it possible to pass a GFSI audit with a poor food safety culture?

Posted on March 3, 2016 by Ben Chapman

It’s not a headline so Betteridge’s Law isn’t in play.

A food safety friend shared this poll from the International Food Safety & Quality Network’s page.

The best comment on the forum is:

This happens all the time. A company ignores food safety for 9 or 10 months and then there is a big push to get everything in line prior to the audit. Once the audit results are in, back to business as usual. It’s sad, but true – in many cases management simply sees a certification as a marketing tool.

Audits don’t really measure food safety culture.

Or as we wrote in 2013, Audits and inspections are never enough: A critique to enhance food safety

Powell, D., Erdozain, M., Dodd, C. Morley, K., Costa, R. and Chapman, B. 2013.

Food Control. 30: 686-691.

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.

Drowning in paperwork and blisters on my fingers: Making room for the human element in food safety auditing

Posted on June 19, 2015 by Douglas Powell

Friend of the barfblog,com, Roy Costa, writes that in today’s world of food safety requirements, food producers large and small and at all levels of the supply chain are subject to increasingly rigorous industry-driven food safety standards and audits.

Third party audit standards have been revitalized by the all too apparent ineffectiveness of the way external parties verify food safety programs as brought to light in several foodborne illness outbreaks. Following the Jensen Farms incident, auditing firms have tightened the process for certification, for example, by raising the minimum score required for certification from 85% to 90%. In addition, the administration bodies at the major third party audit firms are intensely scrutinizing audit results and the performance of auditors. The anticipation of the implementation of FDA’s FSMA, turns the pressure up even higher, and it is likely that the third party standards will incorporate large sections of the new federal rules.

Change is good, and there is a need for better evaluations. The goal of course is to provide the industry with auditors that are qualified and capable of identifying unsafe operations so that operators can address them. It is also essential that buyers are made aware of potential problems and so they can make more informed choices about qualifying suppliers.

Auditors now spend about 90% of their time in an audit looking at paperwork. The management systems documentation evaluation portion of the audit can take an entire day. Auditors require documentation to verify that an operator is carrying out a total quality management system based on a continuous improvement model. Even small companies must now dedicate personnel strictly to keep up with the increasing demands of more and more detailed documentation.

Outbreaks of foodborne illness are caused by the contamination of foods by pathogens. Investigations of these events very often reveal major lapses in sanitation. It is therefore of great concern when a food safety auditor is spending 90% of their time looking at paperwork, when the real risks are in the plant or operating environments.

There is also a risk that the industry will become so focused on record keeping that basic sanitation, and other key elements of a food safety program, such as employee hygiene, training and supervision will begin to falter.

Another troubling aspect of the increasing demand for documentation is the effect this is having on smaller or family owned and operated food businesses. The premise for the food safety management system is a good one, but the practical aspects of applying the literally hundreds of management protocols, and all the while keeping up with the fundamental aspects of sanitation and hygiene, has become a major burden for small firms. While we say the third party system is a “voluntary system”, that is really not correct. There is simply no market for suppliers without a food safety system. Producers at all levels must implement elaborate managements systems and keep them constantly updated and verified, regardless of the nurture of the company, its size or complexity.

To expect a firm operated by a husband and wife, for example, to document every conversation about food safety or have detailed job descriptions, is an unrealistic expectation and adds nothing to the safety of the products produced.

In our zeal to perfect our auditing methods we can loose sight of reality.

A tiered system is probably not possible given the way our third party standards are developed, but placing small operations- a major portion of the food industry- in an unfair situation is not acceptable.

The inability of an auditor to deal with human elements in the audit process makes a fair determination of conformance with the standard impossible. Rigid, inflexible rules, when they exist just for the sake of rules are distasteful to everyone concerned and cheapen the value of our service to the industry.

How to have fewer people barfing from food? Inspections and government are only one tool

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Douglas Powell

It’s an easy story for beleaguered journalists: a belligerent government versus a belligerent union, with both making wild claims about food safety.

Lost in the rhetoric is any concern about the people who eat – pretty much all of us – and the people who barf.

The union representing federal food inspectors says Canada’s food safety system is being pushed beyond its limits.

Some $35-million and 192 inspectors are on the food safety program’s chopping block over the next two years, according to online documents posted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The agency has also disbanded a team of inspectors dedicated to protecting consumers from food fraud throughout Metro Vancouver. The Consumer Protection Unit once boasted 11 inspectors, but that number dwindled to four due to attrition.

The federal health ministry referred questions to the CFIA, which responded to the union’s claims with a broad e-mail.

“The statements by the union are false. There have been no cuts to food safety. Canada has one of the safest and healthiest food systems in the world,” it said.

The agency acknowledged there have been recent changes to how it handles the Vancouver area.

Time to change the discussion and the approach to safe food. Time to lose the religion: audits and inspections are never enough.

• 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

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

WTF? Keep food safety out of AIB, Kansas State proposal

Posted on April 10, 2014 by Douglas Powell

A former colleague at Kansas State University asked me yesterday if I would deliver my annual talk with summer public health students despite being unceremoniously dumped last year.

I said sure, I’ll always talk with students: they shouldn’t have to suffer from administration incompetence (I pre-record the talk, send a bunch of background material and then skype in for discussion; works for most of the world, just not Kansas administrators).

But I also had to wonder when Kansas State announced they were proposing a $60 million partnership with AIB International (that’s the American Institute of Baking, also in Manhattan, Kansas) to create a Global Center for Grain-based Foods.

What marketing geniuses come up with these names?

“We are looking at our shared expertise to help enable the grain-based food industry, both from a learning/technical application, and from a food safety perspective,” said Andre Biane, president and CEO of AIB International.

Having AIB and food safety in the same sentence should shock anyone.

AIB is the third-party auditor that approved salmonella-tainted peanut paste that killed nine and sickened 600, gave DeCoster egg operations a “superior” rating and “recognition of achievement” in June 2010, just as thousands of Americans began barfing from Salmonella in DeCoster eggs, and a big thumbs-up to Veggie Booty before Salmonella started making people sick.

As has been documented, although AIB considered the Peanut Corporation of America plant ‘Superior,” 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.

I also wonder when KState administratium goes on about its Australian ties and clearly knows nothing about the culture here, even with two former KState profs sitting here.

Keep believing your own press releases: it’s what universities are good at.

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

Food Safety Talk 58: Where’s my wallet?

Posted on April 2, 2014 by Ben Chapman

Food Safety Talk, a bi-weekly podcast for food safety nerds, by food safety nerds. The podcast is hosted by Ben Chapman and barfblog contributor Don Schaffner, Extension Specialist in Food Science and Professor at Rutgers University. Every two weeks or so, Ben and Don get together virtually and talk for about an hour. They talk about what’s on their minds or in the news regarding food safety, and popular culture. They strive to be relevant, funny and informative — sometimes they succeed. You can download the audio recordings right from the website, or subscribe using iTunes.

In Episode 58 the guys started the show admiring Ben’s new computer, and his House of Clay beer, before talking about Don and Victoria Backham’s treadmill desks, Ricky Gervais bathtub photos, dressing up like a realtor, and confidence intervals.

Don and Ben then welcomed Bill Marler to the show. Bill’s notoriety started with the Jack-in-the-Box outbreak (documented in the book Poisoned). The discussion moved to the Jensen farm legal case, in particular, the criminal aspects of unknowingly shipping contaminated food and the involvement of service providers, i.e. auditors. The guys also discussed the impact on apportioning liability as a result of the recent North Carolina limiting farmers liability law. The conversation then turned to Salmonella and Foster Farm’s chicken and no one could understand why there hadn’t been a recall.

The guys then discussed Listeria and cantaloupes, including CDC’s recommendations and Don’s paper on “Modeling the growth of Listeria monocytogenes on cut cantaloupe, honeydew and watermelon.”

After a short detour via the AVN Awards, Bill got the chance to explain why he generally doesn’t take on norovirus cases and the lengths he goes to before taking on a case, using the Townsend Farm Hepatitis A outbreak as an example. The conversation then turned to auditors and what the impact of the Jensen Farm litigation case might be.

After saying farewell to Bill, Don and Ben talked about podcasting, including Lex Friedman, and Libsyn’s Rob Walch.

In the after dark the guys chatted about House of Cards, True Detective, Ben’s quirky Aussie accent, Malaysia Airlines flight 370 andLost.

Nosestretcher alert: NPR discovers food safety is controlled by something other than government

Posted on October 16, 2013 by Douglas Powell

I love listening to state-sponsored jazz National Public Radio when I need to go to sleep. But not at 9 a.m.

That’s 7 p.m. EST when this amazing discovery was unveiled for listening sponges: “Food safety is controlled by forces other than the government.”

The analysis presented by NPR is so superficial, I wonder, why do they keep getting government money during a government shutdown?

“There’s this system of third-party audits that keeps Americans safe, even during a government shutdown.”

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;