What about suppliers? Eating safe key to newerer NZ food certification scheme

Posted on July 5, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Auckland Council is rolling out a new-look verification and certification scheme called “Eatsafe” in response to Food Act 2014 standards that came into effect on 1 March 2016.

“Eatsafe is designed to protect and reassure the public by providing more transparency around food safety and suitability in Auckland,” says Bylaws and Regulatory Committee Chair, Councillor Calum Penrose.

The new Food Act 2014 promotes food safety by focusing on the processes of food production and not the premises where the food is made.

“Our industry-leading system recognizes that every one of the more than 8,000 food businesses in Auckland is different, with differing levels of measurement required, depending on the type of food premises,” he says.

The new grading system assesses each business based on food safety, looking at cleaning, cooking, chilling of food and operator conduct, as well as food suitability issues such as food composition and labelling.

“With the increasing number and diversity of food outlets, and the rising popularity of eating out in Auckland, more people will be looking for the Eatsafe “A – Excellent” rating on the wall. Of course, under the new system, a “B” or “C” rating will also be a passing grade and quite appropriate for some types of outlets,” says Councillor Penrose.

Auckland Council’s current blue food safety certificates will be phased out over the three years and food operators serving alcohol have until June 2017 to switch.

Fail: Restaurant inspection disclosure programs that remain voluntary

Posted on July 4, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Toronto, Los Angeles and New York City, along with hundreds of jurisdictions have figured this out: public health should disclose public health ratings, at the door, when people make up their mind about entering an establishment to spend their money.

But the UK and several Australian states go through this convulsed process where they have scores on doors, but restaurants only have to post them if they want to, and who knows about food in school or hospital cafeterias.

The Brits were never ones for public disclosure (see Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk, 1997, or Yes, Minister).

Australian newspapers are reporting that customers are demanding voluntary food hygiene ratings become mandatory across New South Wales restaurants.

Same in the UK.

As someone who has been involved in these public disclosure efforts, including NSW’s back in the day, and advocated mandatory public disclosure from the beginning, it’s painful to watch the contortions.

According to The Border Mail, “Some retail food businesses in NSW display their rating in the window, but only if their council signs up to the program and only if the business is happy with its rating.

Councils and industry groups are calling on the NSW Food Authority initiative, Scores on Doors, which issues certificates with three, four and five-star ratings during routine health inspections, to be made mandatory to standardise food safety across NSW and give customers more consistent information about hygiene at food establishments.

Since the program was launched in 2010, only about one-third of local governments in NSW have adopted the system.

North Sydney Council is the latest to announce that from July 1, following annual food safety inspections, it will begin issuing certificates that eateries can then choose to display.

“If a restaurant is displaying the purple and green poster, it has met minimum hygiene and food safety standards during the last food inspection. If it’s not displaying one, they can ask why,” North Sydney mayor Jilly Gibson said.

Wok On Inn at The Rocks, which scored five stars, has been displaying the certificate since the end of last year, and waiter Sunny Dongdang said he thinks that all businesses should be required to do so.

The best places will always come forward.

Don’t reveal our dirty secrets, beg French chefs

Posted on June 29, 2016 by Douglas Powell

As a postscript to our recent trip to France, friend of the barfblog.com Albert Amgar, who we had the extraordinary pleasure of meeting, forwarded a note from a French colleague who argued that “I think that too much information on (food safety) problems creates uselessly an alarming climate of insecurity.”

Fail.

I have a vague understanding of this class-based approach to disclosure.

In 1994, as a graduate student, I was invited to a pre-G7 summit in Naples, Italy. The idea was to bring in a scientist and a journalist from each of the G7 countries to discuss medical conditions and whether patients should be told.

I was the scientist and journalist from Canada.

There was a lot of posturing from the Italian hosts, a lot of drinking and eating, and very little work.

It was a lovely weekend.

The Americans, the Brits and me (the Canadians) agreed on full disclosure.

The other countries, including France, said their patients couldn’t handle it.

Guess things haven’t changed much.

According to The Times Paris on July 20, 2016, government wants to tell diners the truth by publishing results of health and safety inspections on the agricultural ministry’s website – chefs are aghast.

They are even more appalled at a proposal to stick a label in the window of their restaurants that will say whether hygiene is ‘very satisfactory’ ‘satisfactory’ , to improve’ or ‘to be corrected urgently’. Given that only a few restaurants are likely to be deemed ‘very satisfactory’ , the profession fears for its reputation.

Restaurateurs are campaigning to prevent the plan from being implemented next month. Hubert Jan, chairman of the Union of Hotel Trades and Industries, said that his members were already losing money because of France’s poor economic performance and terrorism fears. ‘The profession, which was badly hit by a fall in custom after the terror attacks, does not need to be thrown to the lions and stigmatised.’

The scheme was drawn up amid increasing concern over restaurant hygiene. In summer 2013, health inspectors ordered the closure of 252 establishments. In Paris, 321 were shut last year. Among the concerns of inspectors were sushi leƞ in the sun, broken fridges and food past sell-by date. The agriculture ministry tried out its ‘transparency of food hygiene’ programme in the capital, testing 367 restaurants. 34% were deemed to have a good level of hygiene, 54% were ‘acceptable’ and 8% were told they had to improve. The figures alarmed restaurateurs, who say that the ratings could be posted on internet guides and remain there even after failings have been rectified. They also fear diners will shun establishments with a label on their doors, unless it says ‘very satisfactory’.

From the duh files: Arizona paper says give diners more information on health inspections

Posted on June 27, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Emery Cowan of the Arizona Daily Sun writes that if a restaurant has print out a calorie count for most meals on the menu, why not a letter grade for how safely it prepared its food?

That’s one of the reactions to our story earlier this month reviewing the Coconino County’s food inspection procedures and listing some of the more serious offenders. We found that although most eating establishments were being inspected twice a year and some even forced to close temporarily, diners were kept largely in the dark. A closed restaurant must post a notice but is not required to give a reason, and the public health department’s bimonthly report usually comes out well after any violations – large or small — have occurred.

Most restaurants never come close to being closed and their violations are relatively minor and fixed almost immediately. What benefit is it to diners to have outdated information about infractions that don’t rise to the level of a health threat?

We suppose that if a letter grade was the only information available to diners, it could be misleading. But in the age of the Internet, the Health Department can post a lot more information if diners are interested. They just have to know where to look.

But unfortunately, Coconino County’s website has no portal through which citizens can obtain information about the results of a restaurant’s inspection or even lodge a complaint. Even when a restaurant like China Star, which has been forced to close twice in the past five years, posts a notice of closure, there is no way for diners to find the 16 complaints it received since 2009 or the multiple critical violations it accumulated.

A brief tour of the Internet turns up dozens of cities with web sites containing interactive public databases of restaurant inspections and enforcement actions. Many have explanations of the scoring and ranking methods, the most commonly cited critical and noncritical violations and the risk associated with different types of violations.

We urge county health officials to put a restaurant inspection public database on the fast track.

Meet barfblog’s French correspondent

Posted on June 23, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Had the pleasure of finally meeting Albert Amgar, mirobiologist and frequent French correspondent for barfblog.com.

We had lunch, hung out in his family’s apartment, toured old Paris and found out there really are other people in the world who have to have a couple of hours on the internet just to talk about food safety stuff.

Amy said the similarities were somewhat overwhelming.

I thought it was great.

Albert said France was terrible at public disclosure.

Oui.

Yelp reviews & Anchorage restaurant health reports just a click away

Posted on June 22, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Next time you look up a restaurant on your phone you can find the business in Yelp reviews along with its food inspection report.

Monday the city released more information from its “open data” initiative, which aims to make information more easily available on multiple platforms.

Anchorage food inspection results will now be available on Yelp.com and on Muni.org. The city says information is provided with a LIVES (Local Inspector Value-Entry Specification) open data source link to Yelp.

Yelp will also include a summary of the violations for the past three years of inspections.

“You’re already looking for restaurant information why not put the restaurant inspection data there instead of having to go to the muni site, just give you more information where people are looking for it,” said Brendan Babb, from the city’s Chief Innovation Office.

NPR: Greenhouse tomatoes and news for the comatose

Posted on June 19, 2016 by Douglas Powell

I always liked it when Stephen Colbert’s alter ego referred to U.S. National Public Radio as state-sponsored jazz.

It seemed so apt.

So 20 years after greenhouse tomatoes from Leamington, Ontario, Canada, became a big thing in the U.S., Dan Charles of NPR has driven to Leamington, to document the biggest concentration of greenhouses in North America.

I’d rather listen to the real French acoustic jazz playing outside my window in Montpellier (right, exactly as shown).

The NPR story is a puff-piece, soothing to the ears and palate (journalists have a more suitable description) that fails to mention the June 6, 2016 ruling in which Kingsville, Ontario-based Mucci Pac Ltd., Mucci International Marketing and two of its executives were ordered to pay $1.5 million in fines in a case filed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for mislabeling Mexican produce as Canadian-grown.

In addition to the fine, the companies will operate under a probation period for three years.

CFIA filed charges against the Mucci companies, general manager Danny Mucci and vice president of sales Joe Spano in 2014. The charges involved fraudulent misrepresentation of country of origin for imported peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers from November 2011 to January 2013.

When the charges were filed, CFIA named the public at large and three retailers — Costco Wholesale, Loblaw Cos. and Sobeys Inc. — as the victims of the misrepresentation.

Mucci International Marketing and Mucci Pac each pleaded guilty to three violations of Canada’s Food and Drugs Act and the Canada Agricultural Products Act, according to CFIA.

Mucci and Spano each pleaded guilty to a violation of the Canada Agricultural Products Act.

In a June 7 statement, the Mucci companies said CFIA investigators found “anomalies in our computer records.”

“We take responsibility for those mistakes and have promised to make every reasonable effort to ensure that this does not occur in the future,” according to the statement.

The companies said that they were guilty of “regulatory offenses,” which is not the same as admitting they committed a crime.

In a statement, the Leamington-based Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers said the mislabeling of produce is an issue “of great concern” to its grower members.

“We view the convictions as a serious matter, and we will be reviewing the evidence presented in this case and will take whatever actions that we deem appropriate to protect the sector, our producers and consumers.”

Uh huh.

Here’s a couple of more scientific things to consider.

Poop in the greenhouse: Survival of pathogens

Animal manure provides benefits to agriculture but may contain pathogens that contaminate ready-to-eat produce.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards include 90- or 120-day intervals between application of manure and harvest of crop to minimize risks of pathogen contamination of fresh produce. Data on factors affecting survival of Escherichia coli in soils under greenhouse conditions are needed.

Three separate studies were conducted to evaluate survival of nonpathogenic E. coli (gEc) and attenuated E. coli O157:H7 (attO157) inoculated at either low (4 log CFU/ml) or high (6 log CFU/ml) populations over 56 days. Studies involved two pot sizes (small, 398 cm3; large, 89 liters), three soil types (sandy loam, SL; clay loam, CL; silt loam, SIL), and four amendments (poultry litter, PL; dairy manure liquids, DML; horse manure, HM; unamended). Amendments were applied to the surface of the soil in either small or large containers.

Study 1, conducted in regularly irrigated small containers, showed that populations of gEc and attO157 (2.84 to 2.88 log CFU/g) in PL-amended soils were significantly (P < 0.05) greater than those in DML-amended (0.29 to 0.32 log CFU/g [dry weight] [gdw]) or unamended (0.25 to 0.28 log CFU/gdw) soils; soil type did not affect E. coli survival.

Results from study 2, in large pots with CL and SIL, showed that PL-amended soils supported significantly higher attO157 and gEc populations compared with HM-amended or unamended soils.

Study 3 compared results from small and large containers that received high inoculum simultaneously. Overall, in both small and large containers, PLamended soils supported higher gEc and attO157 populations compared with HM-amended and unamended soils. Populations of attO157 were significantly greater in small containers (1.83 log CFU/gdw) than in large containers (0.65 log CFU/gdw) at week 8, perhaps because small containers received more regular irrigation than large pots. Regular irrigation of small pots may have affected E. coli persistence in manure-amended soils.

Overall, PL-amended soils in both small and large containers supported E. coli survival at higher populations compared with DML-, HM-, or unamended soils.

Survival and Persistence of Nonpathogenic Escherichia coli and Attenuated Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Soils Amended with Animal Manure in a Greenhouse Environment

Journal of Food Protection®, Number 6, June 2016, pp. 896-1055, pp. 913-921(9)

Sharma, Manan; Millner, Patricia D.; Hashem, Fawzy; Camp, Mary; Whyte, Celia; Graham, Lorna; Cotton, Corrie P.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/iafp/jfp/2016/00000079/00000006/art00003

Dunking tomatoes: Potential for Salmonella internalization

Salmonella bacteria may internalize into tomato pulp when warm tomatoes from the field are submerged into colder water.

Several washing steps may follow the initial washing and packing of tomatoes at the packinghouses; the potential for internalization into tomatoes in subsequent washing steps when tomatoes have a cooler pulp temperature is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate Salmonella internalization into mature green and red tomatoes with ambient (21°C) and refrigeration (4°C) pulp temperatures when they were submerged into water at various temperature differentials, simulating repacking and fresh-cut operations.

Red (4°C and 21°C) and mature green (21°C) tomatoes were submerged (6 cm) into a six-strain Salmonella cocktail (6 log CFU/ml) and maintained at ±5 and 0°C temperature differentials for varying time intervals, ranging from 30 s to 5 min. Following submersion, tomatoes were surface sterilized using 70% ethanol, the stem abscission zone and blossom end epidermis were removed, and cores were recovered, separated into three segments, and analyzed. Salmonella populations in the segments were enumerated by most probable number (MPN).

The effects of temperature differential and maturity on Salmonella populations were analyzed; results were considered significant at a P value of ≥0.5. Internalized populations were not significantly different (P ≥0.5) across temperature differentials. Salmonella internalization was seen in tomatoes under all treatment conditions and was highest in the segment immediately below the stem abscission zone. However, populations were low (typically >1 log MPN per segment) and varied greatly across temperature differentials. This suggests that the temperature differential between tomatoes and water beyond the initial packinghouse may be less important than submersion time in Salmonella internalization.

Influence of temperature differential between tomatoes and postharvest water on Salmonella internalization

Journal of Food Protection®, Number 6, June 2016, pp. 896-1055, pp. 922-928(7)

Turner, Ashley N.; Friedrich, Loretta M.; Danyluk, Michelle D.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/iafp/jfp/2016/00000079/00000006/art00004

From the Ministry of Doublespeak: Canberra eateries score worst hygiene result after government ditches food ratings

Posted on June 18, 2016 by Douglas Powell

More Canberra eateries than ever failed hygiene checks in the same year the ACT government ditched its proposal for “scores on doors” restaurant safety ratings.

Markus Mannheim of The Canberra Times writes that in the past year, three in every 10 inspections found failures to comply with public health laws, twice as many as the government’s target maximum failure rate.

The result – the worst the Health Directorate has reported – included inspections of other types of premises, such as pharmacies, but the government said most failures related to unsafe food practices.

It was the fifth consecutive year in which inspection pass rates fell well below the official target of 85 per cent.

However, industry group Restaurants and Catering Australia says the result shows that inspections are now tougher, not that hygiene practices are worse.

Its chief executive, John Hart, said the ACT’s worst food-poisoning cases had involved raw-egg products, such as mayonnaise, which inspections would not have prevented.

It would have prevented them if inspectors told restaurants, don’t be a dumb-ass and use raw eggs in a dish meant for many.

But that would have raised the ire of industry.

Government is no better, with Assistant Health Minister Meegan Fitzharris’s spokeswoman saying some failures were for “smaller things, like a battery not in a thermometer.”

It’s not a useful f*cking thermometer without a battery, but that would depend on someone actually using the thermometer, which the vast majority of Australians don’t.

The government pledged five years ago to crack down on unhygienic restaurants in the wake of Canberra Times reports on laws that prevented dirty eateries from being identified.

However, few changes have been introduced since, other than new requirements for staff training and a register of convictions for the most serious food-safety breaches.

The register lists very few breaches and only identifies the businesses years after an offence, often after the eatery closes or has new owners.

The now-closed Copa Brazilian restaurant in Dickson, for example, where a salmonella outbreak poisoned more than 160 people three years ago, was never listed on the register, as the matter remains before court.

By contrast, several jurisdictions internationally, including British councils, publish all health inspection reports.

However, industry groups – such as the hotels association, ClubsACT and the food and grocery council – opposed the policy and the government abandoned the idea last year. Labor and the Greens had voiced support for the scheme before the 2012 election, while the Liberals had questioned the need for it.

Mr Hart, of Restaurants and Catering Australia, said the past year’s poor compliance result was simply the result of tougher inspections following high-profile salmonella outbreaks in recent years, such as at The Copa.

“They’re certainly going to much greater lengths to determine compliance. And I think this [latest result] reflects not a decrease in the standards of food safety but an increase in the penetration of the assessment,” he said.

“So we’re in fact not getting worse; we’re just seeing more technical breaches being considered a non-compliance.”

Restaurant owners in Canberra, your trade organization and governments are failing you, yet they’ll still have jobs if your business is hit with foodborne illness. The best always have, and always will, go beyond the minimal standards of government to inspire confidence, so that consumers might spend money in your shop. Take matters into your own (washed) hands rather than bear witness to the rise of idiocracy.

That ‘A’ grade at your favorite LA restaurant will soon be more meaningful

Posted on June 11, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Restaurants and markets that are shut down for vermin infestations, sewage problems or for a lack of water will no longer be able to receive an A health grade in Los Angeles County under a stricter grading system to be implemented over the next year.

Stephanie K. Baer of The San Gabriel Valley Tribune reports Los Angeles County Department of Public Health officials outlined a new way restaurant inspectors will deduct points when assigning A, B and C health grades in a report submitted to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors late Thursday.

Currently, a restaurant can receive an A letter grade even when it is ordered closed or when two major violations, such as unsafe food temperatures, are observed because major violations only cost food facilities four points out of a possible 100 points.

Under the new point deduction system, which will be enforced sometime in early 2017, any time a restaurant is closed for a cockroach, rodent or fly infestation, sewage problems, or for not having any water running through the facility, it will lose an additional seven points for the closure. Any time two major health hazards, such as unsafe food temperatures, are observed, the facility will lose an additional three points in their inspection score.

If a restaurant is closed and is also marked down for two major health code violations, it will only lose the seven points for the closure.

“It’s important for the credibility of the program,” said Terri Williams, acting director of the county Department of Public Health’s environmental health division, referring to the changes. “You want the public to know when they go into a restaurant that has an A in the window that the restaurant truly earned that A.”

The recommendations were proposed after a Southern California News Group review of nearly two years of restaurant inspection data found the county’s grading system allows many restaurants and markets to operate with major health threats and gives those facilities high health grades.

Thursday’s report is the eighth and final progress report on the implementation of those recommendations.

Fred Leaf, health deputy for Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who requested the department review the grading system, said the changes make the letter grades more meaningful and reflective of restaurants’ health and cleanliness.

Leaf added that the recommendations also highlighted the importance of regularly evaluating the program.

The widely-emulated letter grading system has gone largely unchanged since 1998 when Antonovich first proposed notifying the public about sanitary conditions in food establishments.

As part of the changes, the county will also begin issuing new health grade cards this summer that will show the public the date of a food facility’s last graded inspection. Later on, a QR code will be added to the cards to provide more information about facilities’ inspection history.

Yelp pages to display California county health inspection ratings

Posted on June 11, 2016 by Douglas Powell

Soon, diners checking out Sacramento County restaurants on Yelp will be getting a bit more information: each restaurant’s health inspection report and its green, yellow or red rating reports Cathie Anderson of The Sacremento Bee

Luther Lowe, Yelp’s vice president of public policy, told The Sacremento Bee the goal is to put vital health information in a place where consumers can see it rather than having it at a .gov website that very few people actually access. The company’s fact sheet says millions of unique visitors access Yelp’s database each month: 21 million on the mobile app, 69 million on the mobile web page and 77 million on the desktop website.

“When people use Yelp to find a restaurant, they’re in the middle of deciding where they’re going to go eat,” Lowe said, “and so if we can show them the restaurant hygiene score when they’re looking, that’s incredibly powerful information for the consumer.”

Yelp already publishes restaurant inspections for Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Riverside County and other government agencies around the nation. Over the past three years, it has added jurisdictions as they have put their data in a format compatible with Yelp’s system.

“We have our own format,” Lowe said, “and we announced to the world, ‘Listen, if you put the restaurant grade in Column B and restaurant address in Column C, then we’ve basically created a template format that your data will import into.’ That’s all they have to do to participate in the program. Now, Sacramento adheres to the format we provided.”

barfblog

safe food from farm to fork

Tag Archives: Disclosure