Ag dept. delays start for additional E. coli testing

The U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service announced on Feb. 8 it is extending the implementation date for routine sampling of six additional shiga-toxin producing E. coli serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) for 90 days, according to the North American Meat Processors Association. The date was extended from March 5 to June 4.

NAMP says the extension was granted to give extra time to establishments so they could validate their test methods and detect these pathogens prior to entering the commerce stream.

Initially, FSIS plans to sample raw beef manufacturing trimmings and other raw ground beef product components both imported and produced domestically, plus test the serogroups’ samples.

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?

Only 1 deadly strain of E. coli is illegal, but that may change

Elizabeth Weise writes in the USA Today today or tomorrow that a growing chorus of lawmakers, food-safety and consumer advocates are is demanding the six other non-O157 shiga toxin producing E. coli strains – the Big 6 – be declared illegal in meat as E. coli O157:H7 was in 1994. And edited version of the story is below.

In the absence of specific federal oversight, however, some companies have begun their own testing for these pathogens to protect consumers and their own bottom lines.

First out of the chute was Costco, which began testing its ground beef two months ago. Beef Products Inc., the nation’s largest supplier of lean beef, began testing on July 18.

There’s also movement in the produce and leafy greens world, where multiple producers and retailers have been testing for E. coli O157:H7 since the spinach outbreak that almost wiped out the leafy green vegetable market in 2006.

In the past few months, newly available tests have made it possible to check for a broader number of the microbes and they now include the harmful group of E. coli strains beyond O157:H7 known as the Big Six.

The reasons these bugs aren’t currently regulated are a mix of politics, money and plain biology — the bacteria are constantly evolving and turning up new and nastier forms, making writing rules about them a bit of a nightmare.

For example, the German E. coli variant that sickened more than 4,075 in Europe and killed 50, including one Arizona resident who traveled to Germany, wasn’t known before this spring (and is not part of the Big 6).

As it stands now, any meat that tests positive for the O157:H7 form of E. coli has to be removed from the market. But for other types of E. coli that are known to harm humans, it takes an illness to trigger a recall, says Nancy Donley, of STOP Foodborne Illness, a food-safety advocacy group started by parents who’ve lost children to these pathogens. "This is clearly not as it should be," she says.

The push to get these debilitating but non-O157:H7 forms of E. coli regulated has been coming for a long time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long required they be reported.

But as tests become available, some companies aren’t waiting for the feds to act. In the last six months, test kits for leafy greens have become available for the Big Six E. coli variants from IEH Laboratories in Lake Forest Park, Wash.; DuPont Qualicon in Wilmington Del.; and BioControl Systems in Bellevue, Wash.; and others are in the works. For ground beef, they’re in late testing phase or became available in the past two months. In just the past two weeks, tests for the German E. coli O104:H4 variant hit the market.

IEH Laboratories has been testing for a broad range of these pathogenic E. colis for years now. "We had been finding a lot of these things in products right and left," says President Mansour Samadpour.

A table of non- E. coli O157 STEC outbreaks is available at http://bites.ksu.edu/nonO157outbreaks
 

Why wait for government; Beef Products Inc. to hold and test for 6 non-O157 E. coli

According to a press release, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), the world’s leading producer of lean beef, has announced that the company is expanding its food safety program by testing for an additional six pathogenic forms of E. coli.

The new policy is part of the company’s hold-and-test quality assurance program through which BPI samples its lean beef prior to sale, holds the lean beef, and tests for the presence of pathogens. Only after determining the test results are negative will beef be sold or used for raw ground beef.

Craig Letch, BPI’s Director of Quality Assurance, said "BPI led the hold and test initiative and has applied its own rigorous program for more than 15 years, and we are now expanding our testing even further to include testing for these other potentially harmful bacteria."

"Our goal is to provide the safest and highest quality beef. Using newly available testing methods, we are able to add tests for these additional STECs beyond O157:H7, which will help us further ensure the safety and quality of our lean beef and that consumers are better protected from potential exposure to these harmful pathogens."

"With the test methods still developing for these six strains, the recent situation in Europe convinced us that it was time to add tests for these other potentially harmful pathogens now," said Letch. "While this additional testing will add significantly to the cost of BPI’s current hold and test program, our decision to voluntarily start this.

Will the results be public?
 

Netherlands finds E. coli again in beet sprouts; Thailand finds E. coli in European cabbage

Seek and ye shall find.

But countries still won’t test their way to a safe food supply.

Testing is extremely useful for validating safety procedures and to have a sense of what’s out there.

There’s lots of various E. coli out there.

RNW reports for the second time this week the Dutch Food Quality Authority (nVWA) has found sprouts contaminated with the EHEC bacterium, although it is not the O104 variant. A spokesperson for the Authority said on Friday that the beet seed sprouts have been withdrawn from the market on the orders of Health Minister Edith Schippers.

Meanwhile, Thailand said on Saturday that it had detected E. coli in cabbage imported from Europe and was checking whether it was the lethal strain involved in a killer outbreak in northern Germany.

On Friday Thailand said that E. coli found in avocados a day earlier was not the deadly strain that has swept Europe in recent weeks.

Testing has a role — make it meaningful.
 

Seafood safety: It’s easy to manufacture fear, hard to manufacture test results

The Ragin’ Cajun, politico-type James Carville, once said, “It’s easy to manufacture fear. It’s hard to manufacture test results.”

So while some 300,000 seafood samples from the Gulf of Mexico have been tested by U.S. Food and Drug Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration labs – with almost every sample showing no trace of oil or dispersant – some individuals claim that “independent” tests reveal toxins in the local catch.

Don Kraemer,FDA’s deputy director in the Office of Food Safety, says the agency has been surprised by the number of media stories that give credibility to “junk science” and questionable lab tests.

“We‘ve learned some things through this process about public messaging, there were some environmental groups that we didn’t cater to, with our communications, and in retrospect, maybe we should have.

“We’re working now to address independent reports that aren’t scientifically sound. And we’ll continue to test seafood in the Gulf to demonstrate its safety.

“Oil spills have been around for a long time, so we know which markers are the right ones to test for to determine whether toxins are present. In this case, we knew which PAHs would be good markers and would clearly tell us whether oil was present.”

US to Canada: your meat inspection sorta sucks, only send us the good stuff

The dean of Canadian food and farm reporting, Jim Romahn, has written a powerful piece about the continuing failures in Canadian meat inspection – failures that had to be pointed out by Americans.

More than a year after 21 people died after eating Maple Leaf Foods Inc. products contaminated with Listeria monocytoges, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was failing to enforce its own standards and there was sloppy follow-up when hazardous conditions were identified.

Those worrisome facts are contained in a report prepared by two U.S. inspectors who visited in the fall of 2009 to check Canada’s compliance with its own standards. They visited headquarters in Ottawa, 23 meat-processing plants and two labs.

They found that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency generally has good manuals and intentions, but falls short at the plant level, including failures to identify lax sanitation and to enforce its standards.

Thirty years ago, when Canadian reporters began to obtain U.S. inspection reports on our packing plants, all of the deficiencies identified applied to specific problems and individual plants. This audit has identified similar deficiencies at the plant level, but far more serious, it found deficiencies in the overall system.

Had the U.S. inspectors not checked it’s likely that the deficiencies would have persisted, putting Canadian consumers at risk and the meat industry under threat of losing export markets.

The report also indicates some of the systemic deficiencies were identified during previous annual audits, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency promised to fix them, but they persisted. This is after the Maple Leaf crisis and frequent promises by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and Prime Minister Stephen Harper that corrective action would be taken as swiftly as possible.

They have never talked about the U.S. audit reports that highlighted things that needed attention.

During the inspections of 23 plants – Canadian officials went along with the two U.S. officials – they identified problems so serious that three plants were banned from marketing their products in the U.S. and three more were issued warnings that they would be banned if they failed to immediately correct deficiencies.
Four of these six plants were processing ready-to-eat meat products, meaning they would go directly to consumers without any further steps to eliminate hazardous bacteria.

They also found by checking records that some of the plants were running overtime hours without any government inspectors checking conditions.

At another plant, they said the documents that indicated compliance “did not consistently reflect the conditions encountered at the time of the audit.” Later in the report, they write “the actual conditions of the establishment visits were often not entirely consistent with the corresponding documentation.”

Supervisors are supposed to periodically check the performance of front-line government inspectors, but the auditors found “system weaknesses . . . in the manner in which supervisory reviews were conducted.”

They also said there was “an inconsistent identification of potential non-compliances or potential inadequate performance by the inspection personnel.

“The deficiency concerning the lack of supervisory documentation is a repeat finding from the 2008 audit,” this report says.

The two U.S. auditors say the Canadian Food Inspection Agency needs to improve its communications its employee training and awareness and its feedback systems.

They found inspectors were failing to do their duties, as outlined in agency manuals, because they noticed:

– “Lack/loss of consistent identification of contaminated product and product-contact surfaces and other insanitary (sic) conditions.
– “Inconsistent verification of adequate corrective actions . . . with regards to repetitive non-compliances.
– “Inconsistent and loss of documentation of non-compliances in a manner that reflects actual establishment conditions, and
– “Lack/loss of increased inspection activities when non-compliance is observed . . .”

They add that “many of these findings are closely related to those identified during the previous audit.”

They also “identified system weaknesses regarding implementation and verification of HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) systems within the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency).”

More specifically, they identified “inaccurate analyzing of hazards” for HACCP protocols, “Inadequate implementation of basic elements of the HACCP plan, including monitoring and ongoing verification procedures” and “inappropriate verification of corrective actions taken in response to deviations from the critical limit (for harmful bacteria)”

In addition, they identified lapses in recording instances of non-compliance, such as failures to enter problems in the record book, failures to identify the level of bacterial contamination ad failure to record the “actual times when the entries were made.” They also noted that border inspectors conducting spot checks of Canadian hamburger heading to customers in the U.S. found “several occurrences of zero-tolerance failures in addition to two positive results for E. coli O157:H7.”

Between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31, the U.S. border inspectors turned back 61 million pounds of Canadian meat, calling for repeat inspection by Canadians, and rejected 7,277 pounds that “involved food-safety concerns.” Labeling could be the problem with some of the shipments that were sent back.

In response to this audit, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said it would increase inspections at 126 of the 190 plants certified to export to the U.S. There is no mention of what will happen at plants selling only to Canadians.

They say “supervisors are now required to accompany inspectors on a quarterly basis. . .”

“The sanitation task was re-structured to focus more on a global assessment of plant sanitation including more emphasis on Ready-to-Eat areas and equipment.”

The CFIA is also stepping up its training programs, its identification of critical control points for its HACCP protocols, its “Listeria related inspection tasks associated with operational/pre-operational sanitation, ventilation (e.g. condensation), building construction and maintenance of equipment.”

The CFIA also says “an electronic application is being developed to allow inspection staff access to historical data at the field level which will provide for more timely compliance decisions.”

When he was asked about the audit, Agriculture Minister Ritz said he has committed an additional $75 million to meat inspection since that audit was completed.

The results of the 2010 audit are not yet available from U.S. officials.
 

Stricter testing for federal ground beef program may not lead to safer meat

About a year ago, the USA Today ran a series of stories about the microbial safety of food served in the U.S. school lunch program, stating,

McDonald’s, Burger King and Costco, for instance, are far more rigorous in checking for bacteria and dangerous pathogens. They test the ground beef they buy five to 10 times more often than the USDA tests beef made for schools during a typical production day. And the limits Jack in the Box and other big retailers set for certain bacteria in their burgers are up to 10 times more stringent than what the USDA sets for school beef.”?

That caused a stir at the time, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture commissioned a report from the National Research Council, which formed a Committee on an Evaluation of the Food Safety Requirements of the Federal Purchase Ground Beef Program, chaired by Gary Acuff of Texas A&M University.

Today, the committee concluded in their published report (it’s not on-line yet) there is, “no scientific basis that more stringent testing of meat purchased through the government’s ground beef purchase program and distributed to various federal food and nutrition programs — including the National School Lunch Program — would lead to safer meat."

In its assessment of AMS’s ground beef purchase program, the committee that wrote the report said validated cooking processes provide greater assurance of ground beef’s safety than would additional testing for pathogens. Testing alone cannot guarantee the complete absence of pathogens because of statistical implications associated with how beef is sampled during testing.

The committee’s analysis of the number of illnesses since 1998 linked with AMS ground beef provided to schools suggests that outbreaks were rare events before AMS requirements became more stringent in February, implying that controls already in place were appropriate for protecting public health. For instance, no recorded outbreaks of E. coli or salmonella associated with AMS ground beef have occurred in more than a decade. Prevention of future outbreaks will depend on eliminating contamination during production and ensuring meat is properly handled, stored, and cooked before it is served, the committee emphasized.

As part of its review, the committee also attempted to compare the AMS specifications with those of large industry purchasers of ground beef. Among purchasers, the committee found considerable differences in testing and safety standards and suspected that the intended use of the ground beef could account for the variations. For example, all raw AMS ground beef is distributed in frozen form, but distributors of fresh meat products may require different standards designed to improve shelf life. While AMS safety requirements appear comparable to or more demanding than those of commercial companies on the surface, the lack of information detailing the science used for corporate specifications prevented the committee from making direct comparisons.

"The report encourages AMS to strengthen its established specifications and requirements for ground beef by utilizing a transparent and clearly defined science-based process," said Gary Acuff, chair of the committee and professor and director of the Center for Food Safety at Texas A&M University, College Station.

In addition, the report says that some of the requirements were founded on expert opinion and industry practices where the scientific basis was unclear. The committee recommended that AMS base their requirements on standards supported by the International Commission on Microbiological Safety of Foods, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the Research Council report An Evaluation of the Role of Microbiological Criteria for Foods and Food Ingredients. It also suggested that AMS analyze data from the suppliers’ bacterial testing to evaluate the safety requirements over time and use statistical methods to set testing sample and lot sizes. Overall, AMS should develop a systematic, transparent, and auditable system for modifying, reviewing, updating, and justifying purchasing specifications.
 

USA Today says egg recalls fit pattern of negligence, lax oversight; industry says, no

He said, she said in today’s USA Today, with the editorial board saying the salmonella outbreak that has sickened thousands means “someone obviously fouled up,” and Indiana egg farmer and United Egg Producers chairman, Bob Krouse, saying “completely cooked eggs are completely safe eggs.”

Krouse: “Family farms like ours produce 80 billion eggs every year in this country, and we go to great lengths to help ensure the quality and safety of every one of them.”

USA Today: “The egg recall is part of a pattern. When problems emerge with America’s food supply or in other areas where safety is crucial, it often starts with a rogue company or CEO who sees safety violations as a cost of doing business and outmaneuvers federal regulators while Congress dithers.”

Krouse: “Our efforts must be having an effect because the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service estimates the risk of illness to be less than ‘1 in 1 million’ egg servings for the average consumer.”

USA Today: “There’s no excuse for contamination so widespread that it sickens nearly 1,500 people and requires the recall of more than half a billion eggs.”

Krouse: “Egg farmers invest millions of dollars each year in biosecurity and food safety efforts. The vast majority of us already incorporate vaccination programs into our food safety plans.”

USA Today: “Regulations requiring egg farm operators to test for salmonella stayed on the shelf through the notoriously anti-regulatory Bush administration until the Obama administration finally got them into place last month. The FDA says those rules could have prevented the outbreak, which presumes that farms would have complied — and that the FDA would have dogged them.”

Krouse: “It is disappointing to see some groups try to take advantage of this crisis for their own political or social agendas. We urge everyone to wait until the FDA finishes its investigation of the two companies involved before jumping to any conclusions. “

USA Today: “… instead of just writing up violations, it (FDA) needs to crack down on rogue companies, treating them the same way the criminal justice system treats repeat offenders.”
 

Row over report on dodgy sushi in Australia

Australia’s Today Tonight – get it, today’s news presented at night – ran a report that four out of five sushi samples in certain areas of Australia were crawling with bacteria including Bacillus cereus, staphylococcus and listeria, and could cause serious illness.

This caused Go Sushi Rockhampton owner Glenda Johnson’s to claim the Channel 7 show ran a sensationalist report and that the dodgy sushi bit doesn’t apply to the Rockhampton area.

Associate Professor Fabbro, an environmental scientist at CQ University, said when buying any type of prepared food people should look to see how clean the outlet was, if there was a good stocking system operating and a cabinet to keep the food at the right temperature as well as if the product looked fresh, adding,

“With rice products it’s important to keep them well chilled.”

She also said because Rockhampton was in the tropics the council had a more vigilant testing regime than those in other places.

Today Tonight state producer Rodney Lohse said,

“Yes, we are all aware bacteria are everywhere, but that doesn’t mean we should be flippant about food safety. … Sorry, if Glenda finds this sensationalist but Queensland Health doesn’t, they found it concerning. So concerning Biotech Laboratories which conducted the testing on our behalf found it necessary to report their findings to Queensland Health before even we were notified. Queensland Health then immediately sent field officers to investigate and take action.”