Wales to close only public food safety lab

I’m big on my Welsh heritage as I get older, but not sure I understand this.

hugh.pennigtonUK food safety go-to-person, Groundhog Day’s Hugh Pennington, says the closure of Wales’ only publicly-run food testing laboratory due to cuts mean councils may struggle to respond to another incident like the horsemeat scandal, and that relying on private laboratories could create problems in times of crisis.

Cardiff council said cuts had forced the closure but it would ensure public safety was maintained.

Eight other local authorities also use the laboratory.

It means the councils, like others around Wales, will contract-out the testing to privately-run facilities.

But Prof Pennington, an expert on bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, said: “If you don’t have [a publicly-run lab] you could get into serious difficulties.

Prof Pennington led the investigation into the 2005 E. coli outbreak in south Wales

tipton.slasher.statue“Like horsemeat, where something comes out of the blue and suddenly there’s an enormous issue, the public want it resolved and you have to work out if there’s a public health threat.

“You have to work out what the scale of the problem is and you need some sort of central authority working for the public to do that.

“You can’t do that just by relying on outsourcing all your testing.”

Brooks Tropicals recalls avocados after FDA salmonella test

Coral Beach of The Grower writes that Brooks Tropicals LLC, Homestead, Fla., has recalled 401 boxes of fresh, green-skinned avocados because a routine random sample test by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration returned a positive result for salmonella.

avacodoOnly fruit shipped with the lot number 2610 is included in the recall, according to the Aug. 8 notice on the company’s website. No illnesses have been reported in connection to the Brooks avocados and the FDA had not posted a recall notice as of Aug. 11.

Faith-based food safety: Georgia peanut plant chief says we faked Salmonella tests

A Georgia peanut plant manager testified Friday that his company had been shipping contaminated nuts with fake documents showing them to be salmonella-free before the plant was identified as the source of a nationwide outbreak that killed nine Americans and sickened more than 700.

peanut“In my mind, I wasn’t intentionally hurting anyone,” Sammy Lightsey told jurors at the trial of his former boss, Peanut Corporation of America owner Stewart Parnell, and two others.

Lightsey, who managed the plant from July 2008 until the company went bankrupt following the outbreak in 2009, pleaded guilty to seven criminal counts in May after agreeing to testify for prosecutors in exchange for a lighter sentence. He was the top manager at the peanut plant, reporting directly to Stewart Parnell.

Soon after taking the job, Lightsey said, he discovered that peanut paste was being shipped to Kellogg’s for use in peanut butter crackers the same day they were produced, without waiting the 48 hours it takes to receive results of lab tests for salmonella and other contaminants.

Rather than wait, Lightsey said, the plant would ship paste with lab results that actually came from different batches tested a week earlier, certifying they were negative for salmonella.

Lightsey said he confronted Michael Parnell, who handled the contract for Kellogg, one of the company’s biggest customers.

“I went to the office and called Mike Parnell and I told him we can’t do this; it was illegal and it was wrong,” Lightsey said. “He informed me it was set up before I got there and don’t worry about Kellogg’s, he can handle Kellogg’s.”

Lightsey said he didn’t push the issue further. He didn’t say if he ever discussed the fake lab results with Stewart Parnell.

In a related story, Russ Bynum of TribTown writes that jurors are learning a disconcerting fact: America’s food safety largely depends on the honor system.

“Could all these people have been charged criminally with something? The answer is, hell yes,” said Bill Marler, an attorney who claims to have won $500 million for victims of foodborne illnesses over the past two decades.

“I’m a firm believer in using the civil justice system to hold people accountable. But these criminal prosecutions have really got people’s attention,” said Marler. “It’s a completely different viewpoint that these CEOs and managers have when they’re facing jail time and fines that aren’t insured.”

Meanwhile, the FDA lacks the resources to regularly inspect food producers, and when outbreaks happen, they largely depend on their goodwill to find the source.

USDA to order analysis for Salmonella of all beef products sampled for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC)

The United States Department of Agriculture has declared that as of June 29, 2014, inspection program personnel (IPP) are to follow new steps when FSIS starts analyzing for Salmonella and all samples collected for Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 and other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC).

groundbeef2• New Salmonella verification sets (HC01) in raw ground beef products will be discontinued with the exception of sets scheduled at establishments that exceeded the standard in the most recently completed sample set (i.e., Category 3). FSIS also will also discontinue collecting MT43S samples in very low volume grinding establishments. FSIS analyzed MT43S samples for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.

• Raw beef samples, including import and retail samples, collected for STEC analysis will also be analyzed for Salmonella.

• No changes are being made to the raw beef sampling collection methods, sampling eligibilities, or follow-up procedures for samples that test positive for the adulterant STEC.

On June 5, 2014, FSIS announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 32436) that raw beef samples collected for routine and follow-up sampling projects for STEC also will be analyzed for Salmonella. This new approach will allow FSIS to gather baseline data to determine the prevalence of Salmonella in ground beef and trim and to gather data necessary to propose new performance standards for ground beef. 

The sample has been taken, the results are in: now what?

My friend Margaret Hardin, vice president of technical services at IEH Laboratories & Consulting Group wrote an excellent column for Food Safety Magazine this month. Excerpts below:

6714HardinMargaret We spend a considerable amount of our time in the food industry collecting data. Data may be quantitative or qualitative, and may be the result of one or more of numerous methodologies from an air settling plate or a swab to the analysis of a sample using high-performance liquid chromatography for the presence/absence of a chemical of concern. Data could also be from microbial mapping using molecular methods such as genetic fingerprinting.

Data are generally the results of measurements, either objective or subjective, which are designed to evaluate the subject matter in a multitude of ways: sensory, physical, chemical, microbiological or particulate. Such information may be obtained to develop and/or verify raw product specifications (ingredients, supplies, water or air) as well as track suppliers, monitor employee hygiene and/or the processing environment to verify sanitation, develop and verify product shelf life, validate products and processes, or verify finished product food safety and quality specifications.

You have gone to all the trouble and expense to develop objectives, outline the plan, decide where and how to take the sample, evaluate the best available, cost-effective method to employ to test the sample, chosen a laboratory to analyze the sample and then waited for the results, oftentimes with a truck at the loading dock or a vice-president on the phone. The results are in, and the worst thing you can do now is to put those results away in a drawer or store them away on the hard drive. The best thing you can do is to put the data to work for you.



star-trek-dataHopefully, you thought ahead and made wise decisions before you even took the sample so that the results would be meaningful and useful. Now it is time to get down to the business of analyzing, tracking and trending your data. While many factors are involved in food production and process control, having an objective measure will help you manage improvements to determine whether something is getting better or worse. Proactive tracking and trending of data can facilitate a root-cause analysis to discover and understand the originating causes of problems, to track the potential source of contamination to avoid delays in product release or to complete investigations, and to identify areas that can benefit from further investigation or process control. Using your data to lead you through activities, such as performing a root-cause analysis, is much more effective than using the apply a band-aid approach to fix issues. Trending of data is important to demonstrate a state of control to identify problems before they get too big (set alert/alarm/threshold limits), to identify process improvements and to determine whether improvements are effective. Trending of microbiological test results, for instance, can make it easier to spot patterns in your data and better manage the risks associated with your process and products. …

Last but not least, there must be proper documentation of the events from the data through the corrective actions, root-cause analysis and verification that the corrective action(s) was effective. Document a timeline, including the date and nature of the deviation, the action plan, the investigation, the results of the investigation, the corrective actions applied, results of any resampling, training records, new SOPs developed or changed, new equipment or construction and conclusions. This is your chance to tell the story and document it for evidence of process control and for future reference. Unfortunately, the precise root cause is not always easy to determine nor is the precise origin of the deviation always that clear-cut. In fact, there may be multiple sources. In addition, and in an effort to get production up and running again, many changes may be made to the process at one time, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact source of the deviation.

Using your data to work for you through tracking and trending guarantees a favorable outcome for everyone involved—particularly the consumer. And, when used, in the case of environmental monitoring and process control of RTE foods, in conjunction with an aggressive and intensive sampling and testing program, it enables the facility to find and eliminate the root cause and verify the sanitary conditions of the production environment, going a long way toward identifying and minimizing the potential for microbial contamination of product through monitoring and management of suppliers and of the RTE process and production environment.


Relative sensitivity of Escherichia coli O157 detection from bovine feces and rectoanal mucosal swabs

Heh, heh. They said rectoanal in title of their paper.

But it’s important because figuring out how to reduce loads of E. coli O157 entering food service and home kitchens, it’s necessary to do buttheadtextsurveillance and figure out where the most bang for the buck is on the farm.

The need to quantify the potential human health risk posed by the bovine reservoir of Escherichia coli O157 has led to a wealth of prevalence studies and improvements in detection methods over the last two decades.

Rectoanal mucosal swabs have been used for the detection of E. coli O157 fecal shedding, colonized animals, and those predisposed to super shedding.

We conducted a longitudinal study to compare the detection of E. coli O157 from feces and rectoanal mucosal swabs (RAMS) from a cohort of dairy heifers. We collected 820 samples that were tested by immunomagnetic separation of both feces and RAMS. Of these, 132 were detected as positive for E. coli O157 from both samples, 66 were detected as positive from RAMS only, and 117 were detected as positive from feces only. The difference in results between the two sample types was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The relative sensitivities of detection by immunomagnetic separation were 53% (confidence interval, 46.6 to 59.3) from RAMS and 67% (confidence interval, 59.6 to 73.1) from fecal samples. No association between long-term shedding (P = 0.685) or super shedding (P = 0.526) and detection by RAMS only was observed.

Journal of Food Protection, Number 6, June 2014, pp. 872-1042, pp. 972-976(5)

Williams, K. J.; Ward, M. P.; Dhungyel, O.; Van Breda, L.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2014/00000077/00000006/art00014

Food safety scientists double up on ground beef testing this summer

As grilling season heats up, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is enhancing our food safety testing program for ground beef.  While FSIS has a range of safeguards to reduce E. coli in ground beef, this summer we will begin new testing to improve the safeguards against Salmonella as well.  Salmonella is commonly found in ground beef and, in fact, caused an illness outbreak in January 2013 in six states.  Salmonella is an especially difficult bacteria for food safety experts to address because it is so prevalent in almost all food sources.

ben-newRecognizing that we need more information about the prevalence of Salmonella in ground beef to better prevent food-borne illness, FSIS is “super-sizing” our pathogen testing program to include Salmonella every time our laboratories test for E. coli in samples of ground beef and ground beef sources. Because the samples taken for E. coli testing are much larger than those we have taken in the past for Salmonella, there is higher likelihood that we will be able to detect the bacteria if it is present.

Once FSIS has collected enough data about the prevalence of Salmonella in ground beef, we will create a new standard to encourage ground beef processors to strengthen their Salmonella controls, resulting in safer products and fewer foodborne illnesses.  The data collection process will take some time, but it is critical that the new standard is supported by meaningful data.  Of course, we will continue to analyze any positive samples for multi-drug resistance and specific serotypes to determine whether they are contributing to human illnesses.

Salmonella is the most urgent issue facing FSIS when it comes to protecting consumers and it is why we developed our Salmonella Action Plan.  This plan details our strategy for reducing the number of Salmonella-related illnesses, and this enhancement to our sampling and testing programs is part of that comprehensive effort.  

Australian food safety lab staff walk off job

About 100 staff from NSW’s public food safety lab have walked off the job for an afternoon claiming plans to axe the facility could put the community at risk.

food.lab.testingThe food testing branch of the Forensic Analytical Science Services (FASS) is set to be shut down after the Food Authority didn’t renew its contract, flagging a move to private tender.

About 17 scientists and technical officers from the Lidcombe lab in Sydney’s west are set to lose their jobs.

Because some companies are better at food safety; Martori adopts new food-safety program for cantaloupes

I can’t really assess whether these companies are actually better at food safety, but they’re willing to brag about it.

They get a balls-up from me.

cantaloupe.salmonellaTad Thompson of The Produce News writes that Martori Farms, headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, is fully activating a new type of food-safety program for packing cantaloupes.

The process, which employs a hot water shower to clean pathogens from the melons’ rough skin, looks to address critical food-safety issues that were ultimately related to the crevices in cantaloupe rinds

Stephen Martori Sr., president of the company, said his firm is one of two companies using this technology.

Martori built this hot water facility in its Aguila, AZ, packinghouse. Martori grows cantaloupes not only in Aguila but also in two other large farms, including one near Yuma, AZ. The firm is in the market seven months a year, shipping melons from May 1 through November.

The hot water shower was developed, beginning several years ago, through close cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Eastern Regional Agricultural Research Center in the Philadelphia suburb of Wyndmoor, PA. The research led to Martori’s system, which was commercially implemented in late April for the firm’s 2013 season launch.

The water shower lasts for approximately 20 seconds on each cantaloupe, which is rotated during the process. Targeting a water temperature of 162 degrees F, this brief hot water bath pasteurizes the skin, but is brief enough to avoid heating or injuring the cantaloupe’s flesh.

Martori Farms generally plans 1,000 in-house lab samples a season in its packinghouse. It has customers that want lab samples on the packingline of their specific orders.

In the peak of the coming Arizona cantaloupe season, Martori will pack more than 35,000 cantaloupes an hour, or approximately 400,000 melons a day.

“We are one of the largest melon grower-shippers in the country,” Martori said.

Cantaloupe accounts for 75 percent of the melon production at the firm, which produces more than 7,000 acres of melons, including 700 acres of watermelons.

Mini-watermelons and honeydew are also grown, packed and shipped by Martori. Among the honeydew offerings is its exclusive variety in North America, the Lemondrop.

In related news, Liberty Fruit Co. Inc. of Kansas City has earned the highest-possible food-safety rating, according to Scott Danner, the firm’s chief operating officer.

Danner said meeting the highest standards involves intensive training for all employees. He said all employees must pass individual tests for the correct food-safety protocols. Such questions may be as basic as, “What do you do if milk spills in the lunch room.” If someone in the organization doesn’t have the right answer, “We fail the audit,” said Danner.

Danner noted, “The hardest part of the process is to communicate with the rank-and-file. Without our loyal employees, we could not have done this. But they wanted to get involved.”

CFIA plays the 99 per cent numbers game

CFIA is getting into the 99 per cent game, usually reserved for hucksters on TV.

99.9 per cent sounds good, but that’s only a 3-log reduction. For food safety purposes, log-5 (99.999 per cent) to log-7 (99.99999 per cent) reductions in dangerous pathogens are often strived for.

Last week, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced that 99.8 per cent of whole cantaloupe samples tested negative for the presence of Salmonella (they didn’t test for Listeria, but should have).

cantaloupe.salmonellaPlaying the 99 per cent game is also terrible risk communication: it doesn’t matter how small the percentage of positive samples were if you were one of the 23 people that dies from Listeria in Maple Leaf cold-cuts in 2008.

Data and sampling are a necessary evil and I’m glad CFIA is making the results public. But testing is limited and fraught with caveats. It’s expensive, and industry has lots of data, so why not make it public, in the context of an overall approach to food safety for a specific food.

CFIA reports  a total of 499 whole cantaloupe samples were collected and tested for Salmonella bacteria, which can cause a serious illness with long-lasting effects. One sample was found to be unsatisfactory due to the presence of Salmonella.

A week later, CFIA said more than 99.9 per cent of leafy green vegetable samples had no detectable levels of bacterial pathogens and were safe to consume.

As part of a five-year microbiological plan that began in 2008/2009, the CFIA analyzed a total of 4,250 domestic and imported, whole and fresh-cut fresh leafy vegetable samples available in the Canadian market for Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, E. coli O157:NM and generic E. coli. The fresh-cut samples were also tested for Listeria monocytogenes.

The 2009/2010 study deemed 12 samples to be “unsatisfactory” due to the presence of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and/or high levels of generic E. coli. None of the samples were found to be positive for E. coli O157:H7 or E. coli O157:NM.