FoodHACCP Newsletter

Food Safety Job Openings

02/19. Food Safety Specialist – Fairfax, VA
02/19. Dir, Quality and Food Safety – Norwalk, OH
02/19. Quality Assurance Manager – Wheeling, IL
02/17. Quality Manager - Massillon, OH
02/17. QC Technician -Food Mfg – Waukegan, IL
02/17. Quality & Food Safety Manager – Iron Ridge, WI
02/15. Assoc Microbiologist Entry Level – Madison, WI
02/15. Senior Quality Inspector - Jacksonville, FL
02/15. Food Safety Inspector - Omaha, NE

02/22 2016 ISSUE:692

Five Sanitation Tips for Getting Sanitation Right in 2016
Source :
By Tim Tancred (Feb 22, 2016)
Five Sanitation Tips for Getting Sanitation Right in 2016
For consumers and manufacturers, product production speed can often take precedent over one of the most important factors in running an operation: sanitation.
Product recalls resulting from manufacturing errors in sanitation often garner national headlines and cause widespread mistrust and panic among consumers.
For example, the Texas-based ice cream manufacturer Blue Bell Creameries is still facing public scrutiny for their Listeria-related recalls this past summer. On January 11, the company had to release a statement claiming their ice cream is safe to eat, despite recent health concerns.
Making changes to increase efficiency and sanitation have yielded dramatic improvements for manufacturers. A large U.S. food manufacturer installed the system recommended in five of their plants and quickly cut costs while boosting productivity.
One of the plants was able to repatriate production, outsourced to a co-manufacturer at a savings of approximately $500,000.
Another replaced its entire 50+-person sanitation crew with a subcontract cleaning crew, reducing its labor cost from $22 to $11.47 an hour, while at the same time increasing the work effectiveness of the crew and performing 15 percent more sanitation work within the same time frame.
It is without a doubt that maintaining your operation’s sanitation will work towards your benefit in numerous ways. To start off 2016 strong, here are five essential tips to keep in mind:
1. Know your problem areas before you make changes
Tackling your sanitation needs is not always an easy feat. The best way to approach improving sanitation in your plant is to conduct a detailed study of the current processes to define the areas that need work. This may include equipment effectiveness, supervisory staff and materials used.
Many times, the root cause of sanitation problems can get overlooked or not properly addressed, because the time and detailed study of the current process are not closely examined. Keep in mind that you may have to hire outside help to get a rigorous study properly completed. It is not unusual to discover at least 30 percent of non-valued time within the existing process, mainly due to poor planning, poor coordination or the use of overly cumbersome methods.
Once you pinpoint the problem areas, the real fun can begin. An effective study will help you determine your goals and plans to streamline your operation and create a standardized method for running everything smoothly.
2. Make sanitation a priority, not an option
When sanitation gets put on the back burner, it often ends up in flames. It is so easy to ignore sanitation issues until it is too late to do anything but clean up a huge, avoidable mess. A crucial component of successful sanitation practices is having a management mind set. Sanitation is a critical part of the business and must be managed, controlled and executed with the same level of attention to that of the production and maintenance operations.
Instead of making sanitation a troublesome necessity, turn it into a competitive advantage by focusing on overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). Your operation will see an increase in capacity without investment or additional resources, and it does not need to be overly difficult or expensive.
However, OEE management does require detailed process analysis, process rethinking, reconstructing of resource assignments and installation of management control and reporting systems. When equipment is scheduled to run, it is running at the correct rate, using the right number of resources and at the right level of quality. This will not only boost the efficiency of your operation but the safety and quality of it as well.
3. Do what’s best for long-term success
While not investing in sanitation may save you a little money in the short run, neglecting it can cause exponentially larger costs down the road, including elevated food scrap, equipment reliability failures, excessive non-value adding to production time, expensive recalls, remediation costs, potential legal liability, stricter federal regulation and destroyed consumer trust.
Save yourself from unexpected disaster and plan ahead. This draws back to having a strong OEE management plan in place as well as creating a culture within the company that stresses the importance of sanitation. It only takes one person to put your whole operation at risk.
Again, this goes hand in hand with making sanitation a priority. Sanitation operations have sometimes been viewed as being secondary in importance, something that is done when orders are completed and finished, and is customarily executed on off-shifts or weekends. This typically means that there is limited management presence or oversight, and the work is executed in an ad hoc, poorly controlled way. This is a mistake.
Clear expectations, clear roles and responsibilities and measured performance are the hallmarks of well-executed operations and an effective way to make sanitation a priority.
4. Adopt LEAN techniques
LEAN is an older, but proven way to reduce waste and up your efficiency. Using LEAN will allow you focus in on three essential areas: elimination of waste, reduction in variability and reduction of inflexibility. When these factors come together, work can be completed in a standardized, efficient and sanitary manner.
Fully adopting LEAN approaches in your operations will involve:
• Determining the current situation
• Reviewing protocols and testing
• Assessing labor agreements
• Standardizing crew, tools, equipment and materials
• Planning and creating a visual board
5. Make it right
We live in an era where corporate responsibility and branding has become increasingly important, not just to distinguish one’s brand, but to garner positive awareness. Manufacturing isn’t only about quantity; it involves ensuring a level of quality that builds consumer loyalty and efficiency.
When your product potentially poses risk for the consumer, it also poses a danger to your business and its success. It should also appeal to a higher code of ethics to ensure the products you are making and selling will not pose a risk on your employees or your consumers.
Remember, you don’t have to risk using unsanitary methods for the sake of saving money or increasing efficiency. In fact, sanitation and efficiency are easily attainable when they are brought together in a strategic plan. Putting in the time and dedication to create an effective sanitation plan will help you avoid negative consequences and bring you to the top of your game.
Tim Tancred is a partner with Myrtle Consulting Group, a value-based operations consulting firm that drives improved supply chain performance, particularly in manufacturing and distribution.

Garden of Life Salmonella Outbreak Spreads to 15 States, 18 Sick
Source :
By Carla Gillespie (Feb 19, 2016)
The Salmonella outbreak linked to Garden of Life shake and meal replacement mixes has spread to 15 states and sickened 18 people, according to an update from the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That’s an increase of six states and seven illnesses since the last update on February 1. Four people have been hospitalized.
On January 29, Garden of Life recalled some Garden of Life Raw Meal shake and meal replacement mixes after illnesses were reported, then expanded the product recall on February 12. Click the preceding link to see the full list of recalled products and their product identification information.
After identifying Moringa leaf powder supplied by a third party as the source of contamination, the company changed the recipe for the Raw Meal -omitting the contanimated ingredient and changed the label to help consumers identify the newly formulated product. Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had isolated Salmonella Virchow matching the outbreak strain from the organic Moringa powder used to make the recalled mixes.
Consumers who have the recalled product should not use it as Salmonella can cause serious illness. Symptoms of a Salmonella infection, which usually take between six and 72 hours to develop,  include diarrhea, abdominal pain and fever, can last up to a week. For some patients, invasive infections causing bloodstream infections, meningitis or death can occur. Those most at risk are children, seniors, pregnant women and those with compromised immunes systems.
State health officials in Oregon and Utah found Salmonella in open containers of Garden of Life RAW Meal collected from ill people’s homes. Additional laboratory testing is ongoing to determine the DNA fingerprint of the Salmonella.
According to the CDC, onset of illness dates range from December 5, 2015 to February 3, 2016. Case patients range in age from 1 year to 76 years old.  Newly reported cases were from the following states: Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas. Illnesses have now been reported from the following 15 states: Florida (1), Massachusetts (1), Maryland (1), Minnesota (2), New Jersey (2), New Mexico (1), North Carolina (1), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (1), Texas (1), Utah (2), and Wisconsin (1).
So far, 14 of the 18 people who have been sickened have been interviewed by health officials. All 14 said they consumed powdered supplements or meal replacement powders in the week before they became ill. And all 14 mentioned Garden of Life by name.
The CDC and FDA said the investigation of the outbreak is ongoing.

Insuring the Safety of Foreign Foods
Source :
By Kathy Hardee, Esq.(Feb 22, 2016)
The protections of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) extend beyond the borders of the United States. The goal is that any human or animal food, or their ingredients, which are imported into the U.S. must be produced under the same safety standards as food that is produced in this country. The safety standards that are the goals for imported foods are the same as those standards set forth in the preventive control rules for human foods and preventive control rules for animal foods.
Regardless whether foods are manufactured domestically, in a foreign country or a combination of the two, a food product must pass through a risk analysis and the application of preventive controls designed to minimize those risks before it reaches the American consumer.
Like domestically manufactured foods, foods manufactured outside the U.S. must have their preventive controls systems monitored, apply corrections and institute verification processes.
While conceptually the idea of a world-wide consistent and integrated safety plan is exactly what FSMA was designed to create, the distance and foreign borders make the monitoring and verification of preventive controls for imported foods much more difficult. To help with that monitoring and verification, FSMA included two important import-related concepts: the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP) (issued October 31, 2015) and the Third Party Accreditation Rules (issued November 27, 2015). The two rules work hand-in-hand. An FSVP is the safety control process for imported foods. The Third Party Accreditation Rules provide a means whereby auditors may be certified to assist with requirements overseas.
As a threshold matter, responsibility for insuring compliance with FSVP lies with the importer. The importer is defined as the U.S. owner or consignee of a food offered for import into the United States. If there is no U.S. owner or consignee at the time of entry into the United States, the importer is the U.S. agent or representative of a foreign owner or consignee, as confirmed in a signed statement or consent.
There are varying levels of exemptions from FSVP requirements for certain types of importers. The complexity of the exemptions are too numerous to detail here. But an importer that is a manufacturing facility that is in compliance with the requirements contained in the Preventive Controls Rules for Human Food or for Animal Food and is addressing identified hazards in the food or in the supply chain programs will be exempt from FSVP requirements. Such a facility’s preventive controls or supply chain program will address the safety of imported ingredients.
In addition to exempt importers, the following imported foods are exempt from FSVP requirements:
• Juice, fish and fishery products subject to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
• Foods for research or evaluation
• Alcoholic beverages and certain ingredients for use in alcoholic beverages
• Food that is imported for processing and future export
• Low-acid canned foods
• Certain meat, poultry and egg products regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture at the time of importation
Foreign Suppliers
Assuming an FSVP is necessary, to whom or what does it apply? A foreign supplier is the person or establishment that manufactures, processes or produces the food, raises the animal or harvests the food that is exported to the United States without further manufacturing/processing by another establishment. A foreign supplier may not simply be one step back from the importer. For example, an intermediary is not a foreign supplier so long as its activities are de minimus, that is, packing, holding food or re-labeling. A grower of produce is the foreign supplier, not the harvester.
For an importer to insure the safety of food coming into this country from a foreign supplier, the importer is responsible for implementing an FSVP, which is essentially a combination of the preventive controls rules and the supply chain program contained in the Preventive Controls Rules for Human Food. When a hazard is identified that can only be controlled upstream in the supply chain, certain actions must be taken to insure that preventive controls occur upstream in that chain. With an FSVP, the upstream hazard identified exists in a part of the supply chain outside of the United States. While difficult to address, an FSVP seeks to manage those foreign hazards.
FSVP Requirements
Component parts of an FSVP include: a) Hazard Analysis; b) evaluation of food risk and supplier performance; c) supplier verification; and d) corrective actions. Ultimately, an FSVP requires the importer to vouch for the foreign supplier of an article of food. These are the processes with which certified third-party auditors can be of assistance and are detailed below
FSVP Hazard Analysis: As with the preventive control rules, a hazard may include any biological, chemical (including radiological) or physical agent that is associated or has the potential to be associated with a food or the facility in which it is manufactured or processed, and is reasonably likely to cause illness or injury in the absence of its control. If such a hazard is known or reasonably foreseeable within a foreign supplier’s facility, it requires a knowledgeable person to establish one or more “controls or measures” to significantly minimize or prevent the hazard. The FSVP Hazard Analysis must be verified and implemented by a qualified individual with the education, training or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to conduct the Hazard Analysis, based upon training via standardized curriculum or through experience. A Hazard Analysis of a foreign supplier’s facility could be performed by a third party such as certain approved foreign government employees or third-party auditors, so long as the importer reviews and assesses the relevant records of the process. If potential hazards are identified, the foreign supplier’s performance in controlling those hazards must be periodically evaluated.
FSVP Evaluation of Food Risk and Supplier Performance: In addition to analyzing the hazards, the importer must evaluate whether the foreign supplier will be significantly minimizing or preventing those hazards. The importer must evaluate the foreign suppliers’ procedures, processes and practices related to the safety of food, including analyzing any applicable U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety regulations and information regarding the foreign supplier’s compliance with those regulations. The importer must evaluate the foreign supplier’s food safety history, as well as evaluating any other factors as appropriate. An importer can rely on another entity to perform the evaluation of risk, so long as the importer reviews and assesses the relevant documentation. Once a foreign supplier is initially evaluated and approved, the supplier’s performance must be verified on a regular basis.
FSVP Supplier Verification: Supplier verification activities are based on the evaluation of the risk presented by the foreign supplier. Appropriate verification activities are not specifically defined by the rules but are intended to be flexible to address the unique risks associates with the particular food and with the particular supplier. Activities could include annual on-site audits, which are required when the identified risk could result in serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. Verification activities can also include sampling and testing, review of the supplier’s relevant food safety records, etc. An importer can rely on another entity such as a certified auditor to perform the supplier verification activities, so long as the importer reviews and assesses the relevant verification documentation. The importer must establish and follow written verification procedures and may only import foods from suppliers who have been approved through appropriate supplier verification activities.
FSVP Corrective Action: Corrective action must be taken if a foreign supplier has not utilized processes and procedures that provide the same level of public health protection as that provided under the produce safety and preventive controls rules in place in the United States. Corrective action must also be taken if a foreign supplier has produced food that is adulterated or misbranded with respect to allergen labeling. Appropriate corrective action depends on the circumstances but could include discontinuance of use of the foreign supplier until the causes have been addressed.
Each FSVP must contain these four component parts. If an importer utilizes several foreign suppliers, a separate FSVP must be developed for each. If an importer obtains more than one food product from any foreign supplier, an FSVP analysis must be performed for each food product, although there may be some overlap making the process easier.
While the importer is responsible for the FSVP, the responsibilities can be performed by:
If performed by the importer, the processes must be performed or overseen by a qualified individual who has received approved curriculum training (still in development), has equivalent experience and/or both.
An importer may rely upon a foreign government or agency if that government or agency requires the same level of public health protection as those required under the FSMA preventive controls rules. FDA is establishing a systems recognition program under which they will analyze and make a determination as to which foreign governments or agencies provide the “same level of public health protection.”
Certified Auditors
In conjunction with the FSVP Rule, on November 27, 2015, FDA issued its final rule on Accredited Third-Party Certification. This program provides a process for accrediting third-party certification bodies and a process for certifying auditors who can be relied upon to perform hazard analysis and verification activities overseas.
Compliance Dates
Generally, importers must comply with the requirements of the FSVP rule within 18 months after publication (11/27/15). If the foreign supplier is directly subject to FSMA preventive controls rules, compliance with FSVP must occur 6 months after the foreign supplier is required to meet those rules.
If the importer is itself a U.S. manufacturer, the preventive controls rules contain the dates for both complying with preventive controls and for complying with “supply chain programs” that would include the verification of foreign suppliers.
Kathy Hardee, Esq., is co-chair of the Food & Agriculture Industry Group at Polsinelli, PC, which is composed of a team of attorneys from every legal practice area and who each have a focused background in the food industry.

Namibia: Food Security Vs Food Safety in Namibia
Source :
By Hosea Shaanika (Feb 19, 2016)
The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) defines food security as when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active healthy life.
In most developing countries the focus is on food security, while the concept of food safety - although just as important - is not given as much attention. Food safety as a concept is a reinforcement of food security and explains the conditions and practises that preserve the quality and safety of food to prevent contamination and food-borne illnesses.
Unsafe food makes people sick, as it might contain hazardous agents or contaminants that cause sickness immediately or lead to chronic disease, and even death in a worst case scenario.
In most developing countries - and Namibia is no exception - governments' focus is on food security. With food security being the first goal of the Millennium Development Goal (MDGs) and in wanting to reach this goal, nations are striving to be self-sufficient when it comes to food production, so ensuring that they eradicate hunger and at the same time reduce poverty through job creation through food production by farmers.
The agricultural sector in Namibia contributed around 7.7 percent to the country's Gross Domestic Product last year, thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF's) various programmes that aid farmers.
Due to the focus on food security, it seems we are neglecting the food safety aspect in food consumption. With a change in habits, like individuals becoming health conscious, it is important that one needs to know exactly what we are eating and how safe it is. It is the food business operator's (FBO) responsibility to ensure that the food they sell to their consumers is safe. This means all FBOs need to implement basic hygiene programmes.
Implementing food safety standards in a business reduces the risk of contaminating food products, hence providing safe and healthy food to customers. At the moment in Namibia only exporting FBOs, such as abattoirs, dairies, poultry producers and fishing companies are currently enforcing food safety and quality standards, such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), British Retail Consortium (BRC), ISO 9001 and ISO 22000, because the countries of export have strict food safety laws and regulations in place that need to be implemented by all exporting countries.
Those food safety and quality standards, however, are not enforced for food products meant for local consumption, because the country does not have strict food safety laws and regulations to protect Namibians from food products that could potentially harm them.
A Food Safety Policy was launched last year by the Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry. The food safety policy states that in Namibia, food production is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, which is responsible for enforcing food safety regulations at production and primary handling level, including silos, pack-houses and slaughter houses.
Other stakeholders of this policy include the Ministry of Health and Social Services - the custodian of food safety issues. The ministry acts as the point of information for foreign governments involved in food trade with Namibia on matters relating to compliance to food safety standards, in line with Codex Alimentarius Commission requirements.
The food safety policy clearly indicates which ministry is responsible for what. The Namibia Standards Institute (NSI) under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is responsible for implementing the Standards Act, which controls standards, such as additives, processing aids, and all products traded in Namibia.
Food safety issues in fish and fishery products in water up to catch and landing is controlled by Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, while standards of fish offered for trade - whether processed or not - is the responsibility of Ministry of Trade and Industry. Food safety standards of plant and animal products exported from Namibia are the responsibility of the MAWF, while regional and local authorities are responsible for FBOs in their respective jurisdiction.
The nation is still waiting for the four mentioned ministries to come up with the Food Safety Bill. When this is tabled and passed in parliament and becomes a law, then the Food Safety Act will eventually give the regulatory authorities more power. The current regulatory authorities only concentrate on controlling the exporting FBOs, but not the local operators and one would ask themselves why this is the case?
Are we as citizens of Namibia not worthy of safe food?
This needs to change, local FBOs need to be controlled as well, to make sure that the food products they are selling to people locally are safe for human consumptions and are free of pathogens and contaminants.
We eat food products sold in supermarkets, restaurants and at our own famous kapana stands. But how sure are you that the food you are consuming is safe?
Recorded cases of food poisoning in Namibia are rare, although they do happen, but due to a lack of strict laws, if you do get sick from unsafe food there is not much you can do apart from going to the hospital to get treated. Food products that are contaminated present a real problem, because it may result in illness and death, mostly of the vulnerable groups, such as infants and elderly people.
After passing the Food Safety Bill, the regulatory authorities need to take full control and employ more auditors and hygiene inspectors in food safety and QMS, who will carry out audits and inspections at FBOs for both local and international markets.
This will provide better control regarding food safety issues from 'farm to fork', not only for foreign markets but for every Namibian as well.
 Hosea Shaanika holds a BSc. in Agriculture, Food Science and Technology from UNAM and a postgraduate Certificate in Total Quality Management from UNISA.



This certification fulfills all USDA/FSIS and FDA regulatory requirements for HACCP Training. The certification is also accepted by auditing firms who require HACCP Training as a component of the audit. Our training has encompassed a multitude of industries from the farm to the table.
We are so proud that more than 400 attendees successfully finished Basic and Advanced HACCP Trainings through FoodHACCP. All attendees received a HACCP certificate which fulfills all USDA/FSIS and FDA regulatory requirements for HACCP Training

Consumers and Food Safety in the U.S.: Implications for Marketers, Retailers and Foodservice
Source :
By (Feb 18, 2016)
The nation's food supply is arguably safer now than ever. Yet concerns regarding foodborne illness remain a serious public health issue'a reality made clear by the almost daily appearance of headlines about food recalls and outbreaks of foodborne illnesses.
Packaged Facts' Consumers and Food Safety in the U.S.: Implications for Marketers, Retailers and Foodservice report examines the forces impacting consumer perceptions of food safety, as well as the ways marketers, retailers and foodservice companies are responding to these concerns. This all-new report uses numerous case histories to illustrate how a wide array of food industry players have handled food safety issues as the problems developed and examines the aftermath, from food manufacturers such as the now-making-a-strong-comeback Blue Bell to restaurants including the still-under-fire Chipotle. Also discussed are historical cases that have shaped how both consumers and the food and beverage industry respond to food safety concerns.
Scope and Methodology
The report covers both current events that are unfolding, impacting the food safety landscape today, and past issues that have helped shape current policy and consumer perspective. The analysis concentrates largely on two major topics: The Federal government's Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which will begin taking effect in September 2016; and contamination of foods with pathogens/outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, which have been making headline news since early 2015. Among other food safety issues are allergens; mislabeled products; illegal chemical residues; toxins naturally present in foods; and bioterrorism and food defense.
Consumers and Food Safety in the U.S. draws on a proprietary Packaged Facts National Consumer Survey conducted in November-December 2015 with a sample size of 2,000 U.S. adults age 18+. The sample composition is representative of the national population by gender, age bracket, geographic region, race/ethnicity, household income bracket, and presence of children in the household. In addition, the report draws on data from U.S. government agencies (such as the Centers for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Department of Agriculture); industry publications, websites and blogs; literature from individual food and beverage marketers, retailers and foodservice companies; and other Packaged Facts reports.
Read the full report:

Tokyo addresses food safety efforts for upcoming Games
Source :
By TOMIO SHIDA (Feb 18, 2016)
The organizer of the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games plans to issue safety criteria by the end of this year regarding food served at the Olympic and media villages.
     Why is food an Olympic issue? The move emerged at the London Olympics in 2012, where organizers introduced strict food safety standards with the aim of offering delicious, healthy and eco-friendly food for athletes. It adopted internationally recognized food safety initiatives, such as Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and certification by the Marine Stewardship Council. The Rio de Janeiro Olympics this summer have set similar criteria for food served there. And Tokyo has committed to continue the effort.
     It is a global trend today that food safety awareness extends to consideration of environmental conservation and the rights of workers. The GAP is known as an initiative designed to encourage multi-faceted risk management among farmers and food suppliers. This includes measures to prevent water contamination from pesticides and protect workers' health and safety, in addition to ensuring the safety of the food itself.
     Major global businesses often include a GAP certificate in their criteria for food and ingredient suppliers. The effort helps improve awareness among farmers of hazards to human health, including pesticide residues.
     "It is surprising that a lot of farmers were not aware they should clean their equipment after applying pesticides, until they studied the safety control procedures stipulated in the GAP," said Yasuaki Takeda, managing director of Asia GAP Research Institute, a nonprofit organization.
     Meanwhile, there are a number of similar GAP standards by different bodies around the world, which often confuses farmers which they should adopt. The Global G.A.P. is widely recognized as a global standard and adopted by many European businesses. On the other hand, the U.S. government is considering establishing its own kind of GAP, in accordance with its Food Safety Modernization Act, and requiring businesses to adopt the framework.
    In Japan, too, a GAP promotion body was established in 2006 to launch a Japanese version of GAP, commonly known as JGAP. However, municipalities and other organizations have also established their own GAP standards and regulations. To increase recognition and a common understanding of food safety practices, Japan's Agriculture Ministry in 2010 issued a guideline regarding GAP.
Global recognition
The Global Food Safety Initiative is an international food safety promoter made up of leading retailers, manufacturers and food service operators. One of its objectives is to award certification to food safety promotion schemes, such as GAP standards, that meet its criteria. The Global GAP has been awarded a certificate from the GFSI, but JGAP has not. Now, Japanese promoters will have to work on gaining recognition from overseas businesses that JGAP is a reliable gauge of food safety practices.
     Meanwhile, there are similar food safety promotion bodies awarding certification to fishery businesses. This includes the Marine Stewardship Council for wild fish and seafood, and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council for farmed marine products. But the Japanese fishery industry, discouraged by the cost of certification, has been slow to participate in the effort.
The award-granting process typically takes one to two years of screening by experts, and costs millions of yen, or sometimes as much as 10 million yen ($87,466). Even with such a hurdle, some Japanese fishery businesses are trying to gain the certificate, hoping to use it as an opportunity to raise awareness about preserving resources and the environment, as well as to expand its sales chain.
A fishermen's association in the town of Minami-Sanrikucho, Miyagi Prefecture, is working to become the first Japanese oyster farmer to be awarded by the ASC. The Tohoku region in northern Japan was hit hard by the deadly 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami. According to a representative from the association, the quality of oysters before the disaster struck was not as good as today's, because of too many oysters were farmed in limited space. "We want to pass on a sustainable oyster-farming business to the next generation," the representative said.
One of the world's most prestigious challenges for athletes, once every four years, will also give local farmers and fisheries a chance to face new challenges.

Food Safety Testing Equipment Industry China Market Research Report 2016
Source :
By (Feb 18, 2016)
The China Food Safety Testing Equipment Industry 2016 Market Research Report is a professional and in-depth study on the current state of the Food Safety Testing Equipment industry.
The report provides a basic overview of the industry including definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain structure. The Food Safety Testing Equipment market analysis is provided for the China markets including development trends, competitive landscape analysis, and key regions development status.
Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and Bill of Materials cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins.
The report focuses on China major leading industry players providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis is also carried out. The Food Safety Testing Equipment industry development trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally the feasibility of new investment projects are assessed and overall research conclusions offered.
With 145 tables and figures the report provides key statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.
PURCHASE 1 USER PDF @ Food Safety Testing Equipment Industry China Market Research Report 2016
 1 Industry Overview
 1.1 Definition and Specifications of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 1.2 Classification of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 1.2.1 Pathogen
 1.2.2 GMO
 1.2.3 Toxin
 1.2.4 Pesticide
 1.2.5 Other
 1.3 Applications of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 1.4 Industry Chain Structure of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 1.5 Industry Overview of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 1.6 Industry Policy Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 1.7 Industry News Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
2 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.1 Bill of Materials (BOM) of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.2 BOM Price Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.3 Labor Cost Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.4 Depreciation Cost Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.5 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.6 Manufacturing Process Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment
 2.7 China Price, Cost and Gross of Food Safety Testing Equipment 2011-2016
3 Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis
 3.1 Capacity and Commercial Production Date of China Key Manufacturers in 2015
 3.2 Manufacturing Plants Distribution of China Key Food Safety Testing Equipment Manufacturers in 2015
 3.3 R&D Status and Technology Source of China Food Safety Testing Equipment Key Manufacturers in 2015
 3.4 Raw Materials Sources Analysis of China Food Safety Testing Equipment Key Manufacturers in 2015
4 Production Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Regions, Type, and Applications
 4.1 China Production of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Regions 2011-2016
 4.2 China Production of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Type 2011-2016
 4.3 China Sales of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Applications 2011-2016
 4.4 Price Analysis of China Food Safety Testing Equipment Key Manufacturers in 2015
 4.5 China Capacity, Production, Import, Export, Sales, Price, Cost and Revenue of Food Safety Testing Equipment 2011-2016
5 Consumption Volume and Consumption Value Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Regions
 5.1 China Consumption Volume of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Regions 2011-2016
 5.2 China Consumption Value of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Regions 2011-2016
 5.3 China Consumption Price Analysis of Food Safety Testing Equipment by Regions 2011-2016
AVAIL SAMPLE @ Food Safety Testing Equipment Industry China Market Research Report 2016

Hope and faith don’t work for food safety: 75 now sick in Kentucky
Souroce :
By Doug Powell (Feb 18, 2016)
Three more people have been hospitalized from a possible Salmonella outbreak in the community, but the cause of the outbreak remains under investigation.
The Estill County Health Department released the latest numbers on Tuesday.
Currently the health department has received reports of 75 people in Estill County who have experienced gastrointestinal illness. 51 of those cases have tested positive for Salmonella.
The county is still waiting on a number of test results before those numbers will be final.
Eleven people in the county have been hospitalized with symptoms and suspected Salmonella poisoning.
The Estill County Health Department says they are continuing to investigate the outbreak to minimize future transmission, stop the spread of the disease and hopefully determine a source or cause.


Parnell brothers finally in prison for deadly peanut butter outbreak
Source :
By Dan Flynn (Feb 17, 2016)
For the first time since they were sentenced last September, brothers Stewart and Michael Parnell are in federal prisons.
The elder brother, Stewart Parnell, 61, is the former owner and chief executive officer of Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). The company’s Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter products killed at least nine and sickened thousands in 2008-09.
Stewart Parnell is now the most infamous inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Estill, SC. His release date is Feb. 6, 2040.
FCI Estill is a medium-security prison for 800 with minimum security prison camp for 300. It is about 50 miles north of Savannah, GA.
The former PCA chief executive was sentenced to 28 years for selling misbranded food, introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, fraud, conspiracy and other charges related to knowingly allowing peanut butter contaminated with salmonella to enter the stream of commerce.
The Estill prison has not been without drama. A former correctional officer working at Estill was convicted for distribution of heroin within the facility in 2005. In 2009 one inmate stabbed another over a disputed card game. In 2011 a fight broke out in the recreation yard, sending nine inmates to local hospitals, two with severe injuries.
Michael Parnell, 57, was a peanut broker working with his brother’s company. He was sentenced to 20 years for convictions similar to his brother’s. He’s been assigned to a federal prison at Milan, MI, just outside of Detroit.
FCI Milan, opened in 1933, is a low-security prison, known for holding many pre-trial and holdover inmates. It also has a residential drug program.
Michael Parnell’s release date is Feb. 17, 2033.
The brothers were initially held in the Crisp County, GA, jail after sentencing so that they’d be available to the federal court in Albany, GA, until all post trial issues were resolved.
The third defendant convicted in a 2014 jury trial was Mary Wilkerson. She is serving five-year prison term at the co-ed Marianna FCI in Florida. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. Her release date is March 10, 2020.
The two PCA managers who agreed to plead guilty and testify at trial, Daniel Kilgore and Samuel Lightsey, are serving six- and thee-year prison terms, respectively, have not yet been returned to Bureau of Prisons custody. Both recently attended a restitution hearing in the federal court in Albany, GA.
Contaminated peanut butter and peanut paste produced by PCA in Blakely, GA, was not only responsible for the nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2008-09, it brought on one of the most costly ingredient recalls in history.

Key Ingredient Left Out Of Food Safety Rules
Source :
By Robin Stombler (Feb 17, 2016)
The sign inside my favorite Trader Joe’s announced a recall of raw cashew pieces due to concern over Salmonella. The soup for my dinner party would switch from a cauliflower-cashew to a sweet potato one. Minor inconvenience for me; major one for the food producer and anyone potentially made ill from the contaminant.
Salmonella is a nasty pathogen. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) noted that most people infected with the pathogen will develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps within 12 to 72 hours. The illness continues for four to seven days. Yet, in some people the infection manifests as reactive arthritis where joint pain may last for months or even years, and in others the contamination moves to the blood stream where untreated Salmonella can become a death sentence.
This is not a minor matter. It is estimated by the CDC that 1.2 million people are sickened each year in the United States due to non-typhoidal Salmonella. Approximately 450 people will die as a result.
Go back to the same Trader Joe’s or Safeway or Costco or Publix of your choice and find other pathogens of concern. Within weeks of the cashew recall, Listeria monocytogenes was found in certain Dole leafy green products, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli O157:H7 was linked to a certain rotisserie chicken salad, and shell eggs from Good Earth Egg Company were recalled for Salmonella. All of these outbreaks and recalls can impact the health of millions of people and account for millions in lost revenue.
What is the thread that runs through each of these pathogens? Testing.
Recently, three additional final rules from the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) went into effect. These most recent rules address produce safety, accreditation of third-party certification bodies, and the foreign supplier verification program for importers of food for humans and animals. Each one addresses laboratory testing in some manner.
Food Testing
Testing may take many forms. For example, in investigating the outbreak of listeriosis from leafy greens, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes, “Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has been performed on clinical isolates from all ill people and showed that the isolates are highly related genetically to one another.” To the north, the Public Health Agency of Canada states, “Laboratory results from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed a link between recalled packaged salad products and the outbreak of listeriosis in five provinces.”
In the rotisserie chicken case, FDA explains that the producer “initiated the market withdrawal when five preliminary analytical tests run by the Montana Public Health Laboratory all indicated the presence of E. coli O157:H7.”
Laboratory testing is also conducted within a food facility before the product enters the marketplace. This helps to ensure that the manufacturing site is free of contaminants that may otherwise be tracked into the food product. As explained by Blue Bell Creameries in a statement released on January 8, 2016, “The entire purpose of our enhanced environmental testing is to identify locations where bacteria could be found in our facility in order to properly clean and sanitize the surface and prevent contamination.”
Testing is performed to detect and identify foodborne pathogens in order to reduce their presence in a food product. In response to an E. coli outbreak, the Chipotle Mexican Grill offered a written commitment to food safety which explains how it now addresses food product testing:
It takes about five cases of whole tomatoes to supply a Chipotle every day. While we carefully washed those tomatoes, it’s not realistic to test every whole tomato after washing. Even if we were able to test each tomato, this would not guarantee the absence of pathogens, as some tomatoes could be punctured or have a loose stem area that allows pathogens into the inside of the tomato where they cannot easily be detected by testing. Instead, the safe way to prepare tomatoes for our fresh tomato salsa is to also wash them and then test them after they are diced. The tomatoes that are now prepared in our centralized prep kitchens are washed, diced, and the washed again and tested before packaging and shipment to our restaurants. In addition, the water used to wash the diced tomatoes is carefully monitored to make sure that it doesn’t allow cross-contamination between batches of diced tomatoes.
Fundamental Component
The three most recent rules from the FSMA address produce safety, accreditation of third-party certification bodies, and the foreign supplier verification program for importers of food for humans and animals. Testing is a fundamental component to the food safety process, as indicated in these most recent final rules.
For example, in the produce safety rule, the FDA requires testing sprouts or the spent sprout irrigation water for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. In the final rule for the accreditation of third-party certification bodies, the FDA states that it will require that food safety audit reports from an accredited third-party certification body must include “whether any sampling and laboratory analysis… is performed in or used by the facility.” In the foreign supplier verification program final rule, the FDA requires importers to “retain documentation of each sampling and testing of a food.”
Yet, despite these references to testing, a key ingredient that is missing among the FSMA regulations is oversight of food laboratory testing. Important components for achieving accurate and reliable laboratory test results exist, but food laboratories are under no obligation to follow them. Quality controls, proficiency testing, personnel competency, and accreditation all remain voluntary undertakings for the food laboratory. Considering the enormous impact on public health, business, and trade, food facilities and the public should demand better oversight.
FSMA Section 202 calls for laboratory accreditation and the implementation of model laboratory standards, but it has not yet been promulgated. With the reliance on the results of food laboratory testing and the FSMA final rules already in effect, it is time to issue this needed rule.
Tags: CDC, e-coli, Food and Health, food quality, Food Safety Modernization Act, Salmonella            

Norovirus Sickens More than 200 Students at Ursinus College, PA
Source :
By Linda Larsen (Feb 17, 2016)
According to Montgomery County officials, an outbreak at Ursinus College in Collegeville, Pennsylvania was caused by norovirus. More than 200 students, faculty, and staff at the college were sickened in the past week.
Phoenixville Hospital confirmed that tests on two students confirmed the presence of the pathogenic virus. Montgomery County Commissioner Valerie Arkoosh, a physician and Interim Medical Director of the Health Department said in a statement, “This is the agent we have suspected since the outbreak began. While the illness has been truly unfortunate, this has been a model of cooperation between the various health agencies and Ursinus. We will continue to be vigilant and work closely with Ursinus to focus on hygiene measures to reduce transmission.”
Ursinus College medical Director Dr. Paul Doghramji said in a statement, “Members of the campus community who develop symptoms should continue to contact the Wellness Center. Anyone who has been ill should follow CDC Guidelines to prevent the virus from spreading., This includes practicing good hygiene, avoiding well people for a few days, and cleaning clothes, linens, and contaminated surfaces.”
The college has been monitoring illnesses, promoting hand hygiene, conducted environmental disinfection, and excluding ill food workers. Ursine College President Brock Blomberg said, “this has been a difficult time for students and their families. The safety and wellbeing of our students remains our top priority.”
Norovirus is very contagious. Cases and outbreaks of norovirus illnesses increase during the winter months, when more people are indoors. It can be transmitted through contaminated food and water, through person-to-person contact, and through contact with surfaces that have been contaminated.
To prevent the spread of this illness, it’s important that anyone who is sick, especially with a diarrheal or vomiting illness, to stay home and avoid others. Always wash your hands after going to the bathroom, and be especially thorough if you are ill. Wash your hands after caring for someone who is sick. And wash your hands with soap and water before preparing food or serving food.

Closed for food safety violations, Maine processor to reopen soon
Source :
By (Feb 17, 2016)
A Maine seafood processing plant that was forcibly shuttered due to severe food safety concerns plans to reopen soon under new ownership, the Portland Press Herald reported.
Sullivan Harbor Farms, a trade name for the Hancock, Maine-based Mill Stream Corporation, received an order earlier this month to comply with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) food safety rules after the company has allegedly racked up many violations since 2004, court documents state. Allegedly, these violations included the presence of rat droppings and other insanitary conditions.
The permanent injunction against the processor, which prepares smoked salmon, trout and char, among other items, led to the facility's closure.
However, Sullivan Harbor is poised to reopen soon follow repairs and improvements, according to company spokeswoman Leslie Harlow. She said a new owner for the company will be publicly identified shortly.

Canadian Pork E. coli Outbreak Sickens at least 14
Source :
By Drew Falkenstein (Feb 17, 2016)
Hillview Meat Processor in Ottawa has recalled raw pork and pork organ products from the marketplace for possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) reports.
The recall was triggered by findings of the CFIA, Alberta Health Services, and Alberta Agriculture and Forestry investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak involving at least 14 confirmed E. coli infections Alberta earlier this month.
Hillview Meat Processor is recalling raw pork and pork organ products from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination. Consumers should not consume and food service establishments, retailers, distributors and manufacturers in Alberta, should not serve, use, or sell these products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
The affected raw pork and pork organ products, supplied by Hillview Meat Processor, may have been transformed into raw muscle meat cuts, ground pork, sausages, and raw ready-to-eat products. The products, which may have been sold fresh or frozen, have only been distributed in Alberta.
The CFIA says the products were sold or distributed in Alberta by:
•ACME Meats – Acme, 127 Main St.
•Crossfield Meats Ltd. – Crossfield, 1017 B Nanton Ave.
•QC & C Meat Shop Ltd – Calgary, 5320 17 Avenue SE
•Paolini’s Sausage & Meat (Crossroads Market) – Calgary, 1235 26 Avenue SE
•Paolini’s Sausage and Meat Ltd. – Calgary, 5735 3 Street SE
•Trimming Fresh Meats – Calgary, 3, 6219 Centre Street NW
•V&T Meats – Calgary, 3111 17 Avenue SE
•Leung Ky Meat and Seafood Ltd. – Calgary, 1919 31 Street SE
•Community Foods – Calgary, 119, 3208 8 Avenue NE
•Hungarian Deli – Calgary, 4020 26 Street SE
•Rocky’s Sausage Haus – Calgary, 37 4 Street NE
Affected pork may still look and smell unspoiled, but can cause nausea, vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody diarrhea, according to CFIA.

Parnell brothers finally in prison for deadly peanut butter outbreak
Source :
By Dan Flynn (Feb 17, 2016)
For the first time since they were sentenced last September, brothers Stewart and Michael Parnell are in federal prisons.
The elder brother, Stewart Parnell, 61, is the former owner and chief executive officer of Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). The company’s Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter products killed at least nine and sickened thousands in 2008-09.
Stewart Parnell is now the most infamous inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Estill, SC. His release date is Feb. 6, 2040.
FCI.ESTILL_406x250FCI Estill is a medium-security prison for 800 with minimum security prison camp for 300. It is about 50 miles north of Savannah, GA.
The former PCA chief executive was sentenced to 28 years for selling misbranded food, introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce, fraud, conspiracy and other charges related to knowingly allowing peanut butter contaminated with salmonella to enter the stream of commerce.
The Estill prison has not been without drama. A former correctional officer working at Estill was convicted for distribution of heroin within the facility in 2005. In 2009 one inmate stabbed another over a disputed card game. In 2011 a fight broke out in the recreation yard, sending nine inmates to local hospitals, two with severe injuries.
Michael Parnell, 57, was a peanut broker working with his brother’s company. He was sentenced to 20 years for convictions similar to his brother’s. He’s been assigned to a federal prison at Milan, MI, just outside of Detroit.
FCI Milan, opened in 1933, is a low-security prison, known for holding many pre-trial and holdover inmates. It also has a residential drug program.
Michael Parnell’s release date is Feb. 17, 2033.
The brothers were initially held in the Crisp County, GA, jail after sentencing so that they’d be available to the federal court in Albany, GA, until all post trial issues were resolved.
The third defendant convicted in a 2014 jury trial was Mary Wilkerson. She is serving five-year prison term at the co-ed Marianna FCI in Florida. She was convicted of obstruction of justice. Her release date is March 10, 2020.
The two PCA managers who agreed to plead guilty and testify at trial, Daniel Kilgore and Samuel Lightsey, are serving six- and thee-year prison terms, respectively, have not yet been returned to Bureau of Prisons custody. Both recently attended a restitution hearing in the federal court in Albany, GA.
Contaminated peanut butter and peanut paste produced by PCA in Blakely, GA, was not only responsible for the nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2008-09, it brought on one of the most costly ingredient recalls in history.

Some Utah dairies could sell raw and pasteurized milk
Source :
By News Desk (Feb 16, 2016)
Lehi Republican Jacob L. Anderegg has a modest request before the Utah House of Representatives. He wants the dozen or so raw milk producers who also have retail stores on their property to also be able to sell pasteurized milk.
His House Bill (HB) 194 is on the second reading calendar. If it can get through the entire legislative process, it will end a prohibition on side-by-side sales of both raw and pasteurized milk.
Current law requires dairy farmers with retail outlets to choose whether they want to sell one or the other, but they cannot do both. Purpose of current law is to prevent consumers from accidentally buying one kind of milk when they meant to purchase another.
In order to prevent that from happening in stores where both raw and pasteurized milk is sold, Anderegg has proposed signage requirements for dairy cases. The signage over the area containing raw milk would require 1/2 inch bold face type saying: “This milk is raw and unpasteurized. Please keep refrigerated.”
His bill also requires the Utah Department of Agriculture and Foods to create a color label for raw milk.
HN 194 will likely move to the Senate this week. This year it has not encountered any opposition in the House.

Spinach could be new cure for Salmonella and E. coli, or source of E. coli and Salmonella
Source :
By Doug Powell (Feb 16, 2016)
Scientists have found that spinach could be a new cure for salmonella and E. coli.
A new study suggests that a molecule found in green, leafy vegetables such as spinach contains bacterium-fighting ingredients that could prove a cure to common cases of food poisoning .
Veg are essential for good human gut health because of the presence of an unusual sulphur-containing sugar molecule.
The molecule , known as sugar sulfoquinovose or SQ, is essential for feeding good gut bacteria, limiting the ability of bad bacteria to colonise the gut by shutting them out of the prime “real estate.”
But now researchers have discovered an enzyme in the foods which are used by good bacteria to feed on these sugar molecules.
The discovery of enzyme YihQ could now be exploited to develop new strains of antibiotics to counteract E.coli and Salmonella.
And it also breaks the food down to turn it into sulphur, which re-enters the atmosphere to be reused by other organisms.

Federal law pre-empts California meat labeling/packaging law
Source :
By Dan Flynn (Feb 16, 2016)
California cannot enforce the “slack fill” label and packaging requirements of the state’s Business and Professional Code because the state law is preempted by the federal Meat Inspection Act and the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Feb. 12 upheld the Aug. 19, 2013, decision by U.S. packing_406X250District Court Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill that “permanently enjoined and restrained” California officials from enforcing the slack fill requirements.
The decision of the U.S. District Court for Eastern California was appealed to the 9th Circuit by California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, who has not commented on losing the case.
Del Real LLC, a California company that prepares, packages, and sells fully cooked meat and poultry sold and distributed throughout the state, emerged as the winner. Del Real’s legal team was led by Steve Wells of the Minneapolis office of Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
“When It comes to regulating labeling or packaging or other matters within the scope of Federal laws governing meat and poultry, there is just one set of rules – the federal rules ,” Well said. “That’s what Congress intended and that’s what the courts will enforce.”
“Slack fill” is the empty space between meat and poultry products and their packaging. After state enforcement actions, Del Real challenged the California Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (CFPLA) on grounds it is preempted for meat and poultry products regulated by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA).
The California Attorney General’s office argued the state law was consistent with the federal regulations. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to issue rules on “standard of fill,” but has opted not to make an issue of it. USDA regulations do prohibit meat from being sold in packages “fill so as to be misleading.” Federal poultry regulations prohibit the sale of any poultry product in “any container that is so made, formed or filled as to be misleading.”
“The FMIA and PPIA regulations do not otherwise address any subjects that could arguably be equivalent to the concept to slack fill,” the upheld district court ruling says.
The upheld ruling says the case involves an “express preemption” by the federal government of state law because a “clear and manifest purpose of Congress” exists.
Judge O’Neill’s says “marking, labeling, packaging or ingredient requirements “in addition to or different than those made under (both FMIA and PPIA) …may not be imposed by any State or Territory or the District of Columbia..”
While the 9th Circuit ruling was made as an unpublished decision, meaning it might not be used as easily for precedent, O’ Neill’s decision points to several other preemption decisions that point to the limits state action.
 These include:
National Meat Association v. Harris (2012), challenging state law “dictating what slaughterhouse must to with non ambulatory pigs. California barred from imposing additional or different requirements than USDA’s.
In National Broiler, California sought to prevent wholesalers from using the word “fresh” on labels for poultry held in cold storage as permitted by federal regulations. Rejected by 9th Circuit. “Although federal regulations did not define ‘fresh’, they did define ‘frozen,’ and the USDA reasonably interpreted its own regulations in a policy document to permit any poultry not properly labels as “frozen’ to be labeled as ‘fresh.’”
And, in Jones v. Rath Packing Co., upheld USDA’s treatment of moisture loss in weights and measures.

Food safety officials raid fruit market
Source :
By (Feb 16, 2016)
Officials of Institute of Preventive Medicine (IPM), Hyderabad, along with Food Controllers and Food Safety Officers conducted raids on Kedareswararaopet Wholesale Fruit Market to check the use of calcium carbide in ripening fruits.

The team headed by IPM Director P. Manjiri inspected banana, papaya and other fruit stock points in the market and verified the process being followed by the merchants to ripe different varieties of fruits.
“Following the directions of Commissioner of Food Safety of Andhra Pradesh, K.V. Satyanarayana, the raids were carried out and the teams collected 20 samples of different fruits. The samples have been sent to laboratory for examination,” said Krishna District Food Safety Officer T. Shekar Reddy.
Officials found calcium carbide contents in papaya fruits stored in a fruit stall, and stocks worth about Rs. 5 lakh were seized. The papayas were immediately destroyed, Assistant Food Controllers N. Purnachandra Rao and R. Nageswaraiah, who participated in the raids said.
Raids on sweet shops
Later, the teams conducted surprise raids on nine sweet shops at various places in the city. They collected samples to check harmful chemicals and the substandard quality sweets.
Dr. Manjiri said traders who are booked on charges are liable for imprisonment up to six months, besides Rs. 5 lakh penalty. If the sweet shop owners are preparing the dishes with substandard ingredients, the District Joint Collector can impose Rs. 3 lakh penalty, she said.
“The samples collected from the sweet stalls have been sent to laboratory and action would be taken once we get the report,” said Eluru Food Safety Officer A. Malakonda Reddy.

City FDA raises food safety tip-off reward up to 300,000 yuan
Source :
By Shanghai Daily (Feb 16, 2016)
LOCAL residents can get up to 300,000 yuan (US$46,050) for tipping off wrongdoings related to food safety, according to a new reward mechanism launched this month.
The Shanghai Food and Drug Administration increased the maximum possible reward — 200,000 yuan since the mechanism was established in 2011 — by 100,000 yuan to encourage more whistleblowers to expose violations that hamper food safety, including using expired raw materials, illegally processing kitchen waste, and faking best-before dates.
Once confirmed, the whistleblower receives a reward of at least 200 yuan. But they must leave their name and contact details if they want to get it.
Last year, the administration handled 995 cases in which whistleblowers, who called its 12331 hotline, were rewarded with a total of 843,000 yuan, up 13 percent from 2014.

Maine seafood company shut down after violating food safety codes for more than 10 years
Source :
By Amanda Hoover (Feb 15, 2016)
Sullivan Harbor Farm Smokehouse is preparing to reopen soon under new ownership.
A Maine seafood company that supplies products to Boston businesses has been shuttered for repeatedly violating food safety standards throughout the last decade, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
On Friday, a permanent injunction against Mill Stream Corp., which does business as Sullivan Harbor Farm Smokehouse, and its former owner, Ira J. Frantzman, was signed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
The Department of Justice filed the complaint, which was signed by the defendants, on behalf of the FDA. The defendants agreed to cease all manufacturing operations and only resume distribution of food products once the FDA determines their practices comply with the agency’s standards.
In a Facebook post Monday, the smokehouse said the company had been sold to a new owner in January who is “working through a food safety expert with the FDA to improve safety, sanitation, and training practices in anticipation of reopening soon.”
“This was a very unfortunate set of circumstances here, and a lot of these matters were resolved prior to this injunction occurring Friday,” Leslie Harlow, a spokeswoman for and co-founder of Sullivan Harbor Farm, told
Frantzman sold the facility to a new owner, who took over in January, Harlow said. Between the FDA filing the complaint in October and Friday’s injunction, Frantzman had hired a food safety specialist and a lawyer to assist with the facility, but later decided to sell the business, she said.
FDA inspections of the facility in March and April of last year found “significant, recurring” violations of seafood control regulations and manufacturing requirements, including inadequate practices to prevent the production of a neurotoxin that causes botulism, which can lead to paralysis or death if left untreated, authorities said.
Inspectors also observed rodent excrement “too numerous to count” near where the smoker trays are cleaned, black mold and water stains on the door frame of the walk-in freezer, and an uncovered rack of salmon sitting beneath a pipe with frozen condensate build-up, according to authorities. The complaint also noted that inspectors saw water splashing from the floor into bins that held fish and onto a cutting board.
For 20 years, the facility supplied seafood to Boston-based Legal Sea Foods, Harlow said. That distribution ceased in May following the FDA’s findings, she said. Legal Sea Foods could not be reached for comment Monday.
The FDA said that the infractions date back further than last year, and a 2011 inspection of the facility uncovered a bacteria known as L. mono—which can be fatal to newborns or those with impaired immune systems—on the fish-skinning machine that led officials to order the facility to discard and recall the affected products. For more than a decade, the FDA warned the facility about the violations through meetings, teleconferences, filing a detention order, and sending a warning letter, yet still observed similar violations at the facility, authorities said.
Now, the facility is preparing to open under new ownership, and an announcement on the re-opening date will be made within the next few weeks.
“The operation is ready to reopen,” Harlow said. “We’ve been working with the FDA all winter. [The violations] were easy to remedy matters, there were just many of them.”












Internet Journal of Food Safety (Operated by FoodHACCP)
[2015] Current Issues

Vol 17.64-74
Sanitation and Hygiene Meat Handling Practices in Small and Medium Enterprise butcheries in Kenya - Case Study of Nairobi and Isiolo Counties
Sharon Chepkemoi, Peter Obimbo Lamuka, George Ooko Abong’ and Joseph Matofari

Vol 17.25-31
Combined Effect Of Disinfectant And Phage On The Survivality Of S. Typhimurium And Its Biofilm Phenotype
Mudit Chandra, Sunita Thakur, Satish S Chougule, Deepti Narang, Gurpreet Kaur and N S Sharma

Vol 17.21-24
Quality analysis of milk and milk products collected from Jalandhar, Punjab, India
Shalini Singh, Vinay Chandel, Pranav Soni

Vol 17.10-20
Functional and Nutraceutical Bread prepared by using Aqueous Garlic Extract
H.A.R. Suleria, N. Khalid, S. Sultan, A. Raza, A. Muhammad and M. Abbas

Vol 17.6-9
Microbiological Assessment of Street Foods of Gangtok And Nainital, Popular Hill Resorts of India
Niki Kharel, Uma Palni and Jyoti Prakash Tamang

Vol 17.1-5
Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Locally Produced Meat (Beef and Pork) in Bolgatanga Municipal of Ghana
Innocent Allan Anachinaba, Frederick Adzitey and Gabriel Ayum Teye

Copyright (C) All right Reserved. If you have any question, contact to
TEL) 1-866-494-1208 FAX) 1-253-486-1936