Tag Archives: fsa

Meat industry opposes UK cross-contamination guidelines

Posted on by
1

Six years after 5-year-old Mason Jones died a painful and unnecessary death and two years after recommendations from a formal inquiry, the U.K. Food Standards Agency has decided to publish additional guidance on cross-contamination.

The UK. Meat industry immediately complained.

In November 1996, over 400 fell ill and 21 were killed in Scotland by E. coli O157:H7 found in deli meats produced by family butchers John Barr & Son. The Butcher of Scotland, who had been in business for 28 years and was previously awarded the title of Scottish Butcher of the Year, was using the same knives to handle raw and cooked meat.

In a 1997 inquiry, Prof. Hugh Pennington recommended, among other things, the physical separation, within premises and butcher shops, of raw and
cooked meat products using separate counters, equipment and staff.

Five-year-old Mason Jones died on Oct. 4, 2005, from E. coli O157 as part of an outbreak which sickened 157 — primarily schoolchildren — in south Wales.

In a 2009 inquiry, Prof. Pennington concluded that serious failings at every step in the food chain allowed butcher William Tudor to start the 2005 E. coli O157 outbreak, and that while the responsibility for the outbreak, “falls squarely on the shoulders of Tudor,” finding that he:

• encouraged staff suffering from stomach bugs and diarrhea to continue working;?
• knew of cross-contamination between raw and cooked meats, but did nothing to prevent it;?
• used the same packing in which raw meat had been delivered to subsequently store cooked product;? and,
• operated a processing facility that contained a filthy meat slicer, cluttered and dirty chopping areas, and meat more than two years out of date piled in a freezer.

Prof Pennington said he was disappointed that the recommendations he made more than 10 years ago, following the E. coli O157 outbreak in Wishaw, Scotland, which killed 21 people had failed to prevent the South Wales Valleys outbreak.

In Feb. 2011, the U.K. Food Standards Authority issued guidance to clarify the steps that food businesses need to take to control the risk of contamination from E. coli O157.

On June 1, 2011, FSA published a Q&A document in response to feedback on its guidance on the control of cross-contamination with E. coli O157.

A few days later, Philip Edge, the newly appointed president of the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders (NFMFT), warned that the cross-contamination guidelines pose a serious risk to the viability of small butchers and meat businesses, adding,

“If the FSA wish to apply these guidelines, they must ensure it is for every food business. There is no room for the rule to apply to one and not to the other.??“

Complete separation in regard to handlers, to clothing and to machinery applies to all food businesses, whether they are a market stall, a fast-food outlet, a restaurant, hotel, greengrocer, baker, butcher, bagel-maker, supermarket, everyone. And the guidelines will be – and must be – applied across the board. Local authorities will not – and must not – get away with targeting just butchers.“

FSA’s operations director Andrew Rhodes defended the plans, saying that consistency of application was the key although he recognized that every business was different and that there had to be some flexibility to do things ‘the right way.’

Rhodes met with strong opposition from Federation members, who maintained that their views have not been listened to. They have vowed to continue the fight against both the guidelines and the FSA’s controversial plans for full-cost recovery. They said that the FSA did not understand the impact it was having on small businesses.

Outgoing president John Taylor criticised the “the over-staffing and policing of the industry”. He warned that the cross-contamination guidelines were impractical, not affordable and would result in severely limiting customer choice.

Salmonella in salad dressing?

Posted on by
Reply

In the category of useless press releases comes a new entry from the U.K. Food Standards Agency, which announced The Co-operative is recalling three types of salad dressing and “notices in its stores will explain the reason for recall.”

The Co-operative is recalling all batches of three types of salad dressing because there may be salmonella in one of the ingredients.

The Co-operative Healthier Choice French Dressing, 250ml
The Co-operative Thousand Island Dressing, 250ml
The Co-operative Fresh Caesar Dressing, 150ml
 

Pseudoscience reigns at UK food agency

Posted on by
1

The food safety bureaucrats who say cook food until it’s piping hot have come out with an entire publication about what it means to be science-based.

The U.K. Food Standards Agency says science is fighting back against pseudoscience and asks whether the Agency has played a role in this.

For an agency with multi-millions to spend on food safety communication, why can’t they get the science right, and stick it in?

Use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer. Color and piping hot are pseudoscience.
 

UK FSA publishes updated science strategy

Posted on by
Reply

Is cooking food until it’s ‘piping hot’ a science-based recommendation?

The Food Standards Agency has published its updated Strategy to 2015, Safer food for the nation with five core principles:

• putting the consumer first;
• openness and transparency;
• science and evidence-based;
• acting independently; and,
• enforcing food law fairly.

And six core outcomes:

• foods produced or sold in the UK are safe to eat;
• imported food is safe to eat;
• food producers and caterers give priority to consumer interests in relation to food;
• consumers have the information and understanding they need to make informed choices about where and what they eat;
• regulation is effective, risk-based and proportionate, is clear about the responsibilities of food business operators, and protects consumers and their interests from fraud and other risks; and,
• enforcement is effective, consistent, risk-based and proportionate and is focused on improving public health.

Sounds great. But what are the details?

Of the estimated £135m annual budget, £20m is allocated to ensuring consumers have information necessary to make informed food choices, with priorities for improving public awareness about good food hygiene at home; increasing visible information on hygiene standards when consumers eat out or shop; and improving public awareness of healthy eating.

For that amount of money, the science-based FSA could do much better than telling citizens their meat is safe when it’s “piping hot” and “the juices run clear.”

Piping hot is not science or evidence-based; color is a lousy indicator of safety; using a tip-sensitive digital thermometer is the only safe way to determine if food has reached a safe temperature.

FSA also states “The strategy is written in a way that consumers can understand and explains the range of work we do across the UK.“

It’s not clear whether anyone asked consumers if they could understand, but FSA did state one of its main priorities was to “improve public awareness and use of messages about good food hygiene practice at home.”

Use of messages improves nothing; using practices recommended in messages may translate into fewer sick people, but those messages need to be evidence-based.
 

OMG, Brits recommend time and temp to control campy in chicken liver, piping hot not enough

Posted on by
Reply

A month after Eurosurveillance reported on an outbreak of campylobacter associated with chicken liver parfait served in Scotland in June, the U.K. Food Standards Agency is reminding caterers to make sure chicken liver is cooked thoroughly.

Data provided by the Health Protection Agency shows that 11 of the 15 outbreaks of campylobacter recorded this year at catering premises (such as restaurants and hotels) were linked to consuming poultry liver parfait or pâté.

The majority of the outbreaks associated with pâté or parfait, products between 2005 and 2010, have been at catering establishments and involved products prepared on-site as opposed to purchased ready-made.

FSA says that poultry liver carries a high risk of campylobacter contamination if not cooked enough as the bacteria can be present throughout the liver. The Food Standards Agency is therefore reminding caterers to make sure chicken livers are handled hygienically and cooked thoroughly when used in products such as pâté or parfait.

Some recipes indicate that searing chicken liver is enough to kill any bacteria. However, food safety experts at the Agency advise that chicken liver must be cooked all the way through and not just seared. Campylobacter can be present throughout the liver, not just on the surface.

The Agency advises that liver, kidneys, and other types of offal should be handled hygienically to avoid cross-contamination and cooked thoroughly until they are steaming hot all the way through. The centre should reach a temperature of 70°C for two minutes or the equivalent time and temperature.

The equivalent heat treatments are:

* 65°C for 10 minutes
* 70°C for 2 minutes
* 75°C for 30 seconds
* 80°C for 6 seconds.

FSA couldn’t help itself, reverting to old habits by referring to ‘steaming hot,’ but at least they published some times and temperatures. But with all those PhDs, FSA can do better. Recommend using a tip-sensitive digital thermometer, publish pictures showing how to temp a liver parfait, and tell everyone, Stick It In.

UK regulator wants cameras in slaughterhouses to curb animal abuse, industry says, hang on mate

Posted on by
2

In Feb. 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture shut down a meat processing company after concluding workers committed egregious acts of animal cruelty, about a week after the Humane Society of the United States released video showing employees of the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. of Chino, Calif., tormenting cows that were too injured or weak to stand.

That $100-million-a-year company does not exist anymore – brought down by someone using an over-the-counter video recording device.

An employee of the Humane Society of the United States worked undercover inside the company for about six weeks in the fall, secretly recording what went on.

His video shows what appear to be crippled cows dragged with forklifts, sprayed in the face with a high-pressure water hose and poked in the eye with a stick.

The images sparked concern not only from animal-welfare advocates, but from food-safety experts, who feared the company might have used the tactic to prod sick animals to slaughter in violation of state and federal regulations.

At the time I said maybe it was time for USDA to adopt some new inspection and investigative techniques if the HSUS can so easily document such grotesquely poor treatment of animals.

In April, 2008, Dr. Richard Raymond of USDA said the department needed neither video cameras nor more inspectors to police slaughterhouses after the country’s largest beef recall earlier this year.

Everything was just fine.

In March 2009, Cargill Beef decided to do their own thing – probably because when an outbreak or outrage happens, the USDA or any other regulatory types, don’t lose their jobs, it’s the producers, processors and employees who lose money and their jobs — and implemented a third-party video-auditing system that would operate 24 hours a day at its U.S. beef slaughter plants to enhance the company’s animal welfare protection systems.

A year later, Cargill announced it was expanding its remote video auditing program to monitor food-safety procedures within processing plants.

Mike Siemens, Cargill leader of animal welfare and husbandry, said at the time,

“The early results with our animal welfare program have been terrific … In addition to the positive results on compliance rates, we have observed healthy competition among plants on performance scores, as well as a general theme of collaboration among plants on how to attack specific operational challenges. The ability to share data and video easily is extremely valuable.”

If the U.S. regulators aren’t listening, the Brits are.

The U.K. Food Standards Agency tabled a proposal last week to introduce CCTV (closed circuit television) cameras into slaughterhouses in a bid to tackle animal welfare abuse.

Food Production Daily cited FSA director of operations Andrew Rhodes as saying the agency is calling for the voluntary introduction of surveillance cameras after undercover filming by animal rights group Animal Aid in the last year had highlighted abuses in U.K. slaughterhouses. The proposal is due to go before agency chiefs next week for approval.

The report said that while there is no legal requirement to fit CCTV, food business operators (FBOs) may come under pressure from retailers to install systems. The FSA acknowledged there were practical issues – such as how the footage in monitored, who has access to it and how long film is kept – that must be addressed.

Agreed. There are lots of issues involved. So figure them out. What slaughterhouse or processor wants to be held hostage by each new hire that may be carrying a video device.

Today, Food Production Daily cited Stephen Rossides, head of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), as saying that proposals to fit surveillance cameras in UK slaughterhouses to combat animal welfare abuses must remain voluntary as violations are relatively rare.

I don’t know about the U.K., but at the time of the Westland mess, Julie Schmit of USA Today reported that newly released government records show such animal mishandling in past years was more than a rare occurrence.

The Animal Welfare Institute, an animal-protection group, said that more than 10% of the humane-slaughter violations issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the 18 months ended March 2004 detailed improper treatment of animals that couldn’t walk — mostly cattle.

USDA records obtained by the Animal Welfare Institute describe 501 humane-handling or slaughter violations that occurred at other slaughter plants. At one plant, a downed cow was pushed 15 feet with a forklift. Other companies were cited for dragging downed but conscious animals, letting downed cattle be trampled and stood on by others and, in one case, using "excessive force" with a rope and an electric prod to get a downed cow to stand, the enforcement records say.

Beyond reaction and regulation, producers and processors who say their food is safe should be able to prove it. Producers and processors who say they treat animals humanely should be able to prove it.

UK Food Standards Agency survives; new focus should help get the science right; piping hot is not a standard

Posted on by
Reply

‘You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more.’

That’s what eventual U.S. President Richard Nixon said to the press after losing the election for Governor of California in 1962 (he became President in 1968).

“I leave you gentleman now and you will write it. You will interpret it. That’s your right. But as I leave you I want you to know — just think how much you’re going to be missing. You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference and it will be one in which I have welcomed the opportunity to test wits with you.”

And just like Nixon, the U.K. Food Standards Agency has come back from the political backwaters with, what the government calls, “a renewed focus on food safety.”

The Government recognizes the important role of the Food Standards Agency in England, which will continue to be responsible for food safety. The Food Standards Agency will remain a non-ministerial department reporting to Parliament through Health ministers.

In England, nutrition policy will become a responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. Food labelling and food composition policy, where not related to food safety, will become a responsibility of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

This is tremendous news for food safety types as it was clear the Agency was being distracted by trying to be everything to everybody. Issues surrounding salt, fat, genetic engineering, labeling and others are largely lifestyle choices – they are not food safety issues, the things that make people barf.

Although the U.K. Department of Health needs new communications types when they begin a press release with,

“Public confidence in food safety issues will be protected, as the Government confirmed its intention to retain the Food Standards Agency (FSA) with a renewed focus on food safety.”

Public confidence is earned, not protected by a bureaucratic shuffling of the chairs.

Now that FSA is clearly focused on food safety, can they get rid of their nonsensical cooking temperature advice – piping hot – and focus on some evidence that will lead to fewer people barfing.

Otherwise, like Nixon, you’ll be back, only to get kicked around.

What about Wales? If U.K. Food Standards Agency goes, Wales should set up its own

Posted on by
Reply

Professor Hugh Pennington, who wrote a report following the 2005 E. coli outbreak in South Wales which claimed the life of five-year-old Mason Jones, said the plan to abolish the U.K. Food Standards Agency had “absolutely no merit” and “could lead to more tragedies.”

Wales Online reports the U.K. Department for Health yesterday said no final decision had been taken about the fate of the FSA, but admitted it was “under review” along with other bodies.

Professor Pennington urged the Welsh Assembly to “think very, very hard” about creating their own FSA in Wales should the current one be abolished and said there was no need to follow England’s example.

There is confusion today over what will happen in Wales if the FSA is abolished.
It has been reported that in England, the FSA’s responsibilities would be taken on jointly by the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – whose remit does not cover Wales.

It also comes as the Welsh Assembly is in the midst of taking forward the actions of the Pennington Report.

The issue could prove embarrassing for the Welsh Conservatives, who last week called for more powers for the FSA, while their London counterparts have confirmed they are considering its future.

Professor Pennington said,

“What is being proposed seems to be going back to what we had before and that would be a significant step backwards. I see no merit in it whatsoever. E.coli hasn’t gone, and it’s likely to cause problems again in the future if you don’t get the system of regulation and inspection right. We know there are a minority of food companies out there who flout the rules and present a danger to the public. They need to be found and stamped on.”

The mother of five-year-old Mason Jones, who died after contracting E. coli in the 2005 outbreak in South Wales, said abolishing the FSA would be a “major, major blow to Wales. If the FSA is abolished, who is going to oversee Wales’ local authorities? It is quite shocking. It would be a major, major setback for all that we have tried to achieve with the Pennington report. It would be absolutely awful.”

UK Food Standards Agency to be abolished by health secretary; was it due to ‘piping hot’ cooking advice?

Posted on by
Reply

On March 20, 1996, British Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell rose in the House to inform colleagues that scientists had discovered a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in 10 victims, and that they could not rule out a link with consumption of beef from cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease.

Overnight, the British beef market collapsed and politicians quickly learned how to enunciate bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Within days, the European Union banned exports of British beef; consumption of beef fell throughout Europe; and the tell-tale triumvirate of uncertain science, risk and politics was played out—and continues—in media headlines. Beef consumption across the European Union (EU) dropped 11 per cent in 1996, and the BSE crisis cost the EU US$2.8 billion in subsidies alone to the beef industry in the first year.

Yet the March 20, 1996 announcement, rather than the beginning of the on-going BSE crisis, as it is now commonly called, was instead the culmination of 10 years of bureaucratic mismanagement, political bravado, and a gross underestimation of the public’s capacity to deal with risk.

In response to BSE and several other food poisoning outbreaks, the Food Standards Agency was created in 2000. I may have some of the details wrong because I’m going for speed at the moment and relying on wiki, but one of the key philosophical underpinnings of the new agency was that farming, food processing and food safety maybe shouldn’t be concentrated in one department. You hear the same thing when Washington-types talk about the need for a single food safety agency.

The Guardian reports tonight U.K. health secretary, Andrew Lansley, is to announce the abolition of the Food Standards Agency – which has fought a running battle with industry over the introduction of color-coded "traffic light" warnings for groceries, TV dinners and snacks – sparking accusations the minister has "caved in to big business."

As part of sweeping changes Lansley will reassign the FSA’s regulatory aspects – including safety and hygiene in the food chain – to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Meanwhile, its responsibilities for nutrition and diet advice and its public health remit will be incorporated into the Department of Health.

There’s lots of allegations about industry-pressure, and food dyes, and obesity and genetically-engineered foods, but not too much about food safety, except for a spokesman for cereal manufacturer Kellogg’s, who said,

"The FSA has done a very good job in terms of food safety and science but there was a feeling that perhaps its role was becoming far too broad.”

Whoa there. Dr Judith Hilton, Head of Microbiological Safety at the FSA, said in July 2007,

‘”The current UK advice that burgers should be cooked at 70°C for 2 minutes or equivalent is upheld by this ACMSF report. Advice to consumers remains the same – to follow manufacturers’ instructions and make sure that burgers are piping hot throughout, cooked until the juices run clear and there’s no pink meat inside.”

And I’ve made fun of the advice, because clear juices and meat color are lousy indicators of microbiological safety.

The move will lead to lots of proclamations about all things trendy for foodies, but won’t do much for food safety.

C is for Chinese in the UK too

Posted on by
Reply

U.K. Chinese restaurants and takeaways have dirtier kitchens than eating places serving other styles of cooking, according to environmental health officers.

A national survey of hygiene ratings found that more than half of 491 Chinese outlets failed to meet all legal requirements aimed at preventing food poisoning among diners. Almost half of Indian restaurants and takeaways surveyed also scored poorly in the survey of different cuisines, which was carried out for The Independent.

Similarly low ratings were given to kebab shops, while failings were found at a quarter of fish and chip shops and one in five Italian establishments. By contrast, corporate burger bars run by McDonald’s and KFC chicken houses were found to be very clean.

Paul Hiscoe, a director of Transparency Data, which carried out the survey, said, environmental health officers believe Chinese and Indian chefs struggle on hygiene because of "a combination of culture and language.” They did not always understand food laws and often had difficulty understanding instructions from council officers.