FoodHACCP Newsletter



Food Safety Job Openings

03/18. QA Director - Formula – Van Nuys, CA
03/18. Director, QA & Food Safety - San Diego, CA
03/18. Food Safety & Sanitation Mgr – Long Island City, NY
03/16. Food Safety Field Inspector - Charlotte, NC
03/16. Quality Assurance Manager - Northeast, NJ
03/16. Food Safety Specialist 1 – Ohio
03/16. Contract Seafood Auditor – Chicago, IL
03/14. Food Safety & Brand Std Spec - Vallejo, CA
03/14. Quality Supervisor – Enid, OK
03/14. Quality Manager – Walton, NY

03/21 2016 ISSUE:696

Is your food safe?
Source : http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Is-your-food-safe-6923026.php
By Julie Moran Alterio (Mar 20, 2016)
The list of eating venues that failed Stamford health inspections since the beginning of the year includes high-end restaurants and corner delis, neighborhood pizza shops, a smattering of local bars and a grocery store.
While most of the city’s 607 eateries received a passing score of 80 or above on a 100-point scale, 7 percent — or 40 venues — failed their most recent unannounced inspection, city officials said.
There were 481 restaurants, or 69 percent, that were rated “best,” 106 restaurants, or 17 percent, rated “acceptable,” and 43 restaurants, or 7 percent, that were rated “fair.”
Depending on the type of business, the most recent check by a city environmental health inspector could have been as long as a year ago.
“We’re here to help the restaurant owners,” said Tim Noia, one of 10 inspectors who make sure the food sold in Stamford is safe to eat. “We want to see them flourish, but we also want them to keep food safety as part of their business in order to protect their customers. If they don’t protect their customers, they’re not going to have any business.”

EU food safety standards could bring boom or bust
Source : http://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/business/eu-food-safety-standards-could-bring-boom-or-bust-410223.html
By Isobel Koshiw (Mar 20, 2016)
But that should change soon, according to Volodymyr Lapa, the head of the new food safety and consumer protection state regulatory body.
Lapa told the Kyiv Post that new laws that came into force in January have finally brought Ukraine’s food safety and consumer rights legislation into line with that of the European Union.
The new legislation aims to improve standards of hygiene and food safety, as well as government supervisory procedures. Under the law, and to comply with the minimum requirements for exporting to the EU, all Ukrainian producers and retailers must conform to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points standards.
But according to the International Finance Corporation, which advises businesses and the government on how to achieve HACCP standards, only several hundred out of thousands of Ukrainian companies currently comply with them. In 2010, the corporation calculated that 200 out of 20,000 or so manufactures had implemented HACCP standards, though figure does not include retailers.
Under the new laws, the Food Safety and Consumer Protection Agency that Lapa heads will replace the assortment of inspectorates that now exist. A total of 30,500 people are currently employed to regulate various aspects of food and consumer safety, while in future the number will be reduced to 10,000 people.
Lapa told the Kyiv Post that he will form his staff by the end of 2016.
He hopes many of the new employees will be found through an open, competitive hiring process for the agency’s top positions.
The new body will make monitoring standards compliance more efficient and less expensive, according to Lapa. Duplication was rife under the old system. For instance, both the state veterinary body and the sanitary body oversaw the dairy industry because it involves animal products.
Meanwhile, only 10 Ukrainian companies are now certified as being in full compliance with the diary product importing regulations of the EU, but Lapa says he will soon recommend another three or four enterprises for inclusion by the European inspectorate.
“The most difficult stage is gaining permission for the country,” Lapa said. “After the adoption of legislation, the European Commission checks the controls and checks the enterprises. For dairy production that took about five years. For each type of production it is not an easy process, but if they accept the Ukrainian system of controls, then it comes down to the businesses to do the rest.”
Yuri Zvazhenko, who advises Ukrainian businesses at the International Finance Corporation, told the Kyiv Post that EU approval “is based on the general sanitary and veterinary situation in Ukraine. Companies still need to get certification to export.
According to Zvazhenko, HACCP standards are just the minimum requirements. In reality, they need other certificates, such as those issued for “organic” products, in order to be competitive.
Many companies don’t see a reason to become EU certified, Zvazhenko said, because they work inside Ukraine. “But the situation could change when the standards become mandatory. Implementation is low because companies need to improve their infrastructure… Most companies are former Soviet companies, and are still using the same premises and the same equipment. Renovation is difficult and expensive.”
Smaller companies have a two-year transition period, from 2017 until 2019, to comply with the new legislation, while larger companies must do so in 2017. Those who fail may face being shut down.
“If you look at the situation in the Baltic States and Poland, after the (EU-compliant) legislation came into force, a lot of companies closed,” Zvazhenko told the Kyiv Post.
Lapa said his agency will conduct training sessions in each region, together with the Agriculture Ministry, to explain the new principles of food safety to businesses.
As part of the March 29 Kyiv Post Capturing New Markets conference at the Hilton Kyiv Hotel, Ramunas Freigofas, a policy officer for sanitary and phytosanitary measures at the European Commission, will speak on food safety and related issues.

Salmonella Poona outbreak ends without a ‘smoking’ cucumber
Source : http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/03/salmonella-poona-outbreak-ends-without-a-smoking-imported-cucumber/#.Vu9InE5JmUl
By Dan Flynn (Mar 19, 2016)
The fields where the cucumbers were grown were likely in Baja, Mexico, but how they became contaminated with Salmonella Poona remains unknown. And there is no report of any U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigator holding up a “smoking” cucumber or being on Mexican soil.
Nevertheless, last year’s multi-state outbreak of Salmonella infections linked to cucumbers from Mexico was declared over on March 18. Since the last update on Jan. 26, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said an additional 19 people were added to the outbreak from eight states.
The CDC final report says 907 people were infected with the outbreak strains of Salmonella in 40 states. Among these, at least 204 hospitalizations and 6 deaths were associated with the outbreak.
The Salmonella Poona outbreak first came to light last Sept. 4 with CDC’s initial announcement. Through epidemiological, laboratory and traceback investigations, state and federal investigators identified cucumbers imported from Mexico and distributed by Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce as the likely source of the outbreak infections.
Two recalls by Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce followed in September for cucumbers over possible Salmonella contamination. CDC says no other food was associated with the outbreak, but the source of the contamination for the cucumbers distributed by Andrews & Williamson has not been identified.
The CDC final report is silent on whether any U.S. government officials did any on the ground investigations in Mexico. CDC credits public health officials from “many states and the U.S., Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for conducting the months-long investigation.
The peak of the Salmonella Poona illnesses occurred last September-October.
The FDA traceback investigation did determined that the firm Rancho Don Juanito de R.L. de C.V. located in Baja, Mexico was the primary source of cucumbers shipped to Andrew & Williamson.  It issued two import alerts on further entry of fresh produce from Rancho Don into the U.S.

 

 

 

 


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













Listeria cases, including one death, linked via DNA to raw milk
Source : http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/03/124654/#.Vu9Izk5JmUl
By Coral Beach (Mar 18, 2016)
Producer proclamations and consumer testimonials to the contrary, the new evidence is about the risk of raw milk with the latest discovery being Listeria infections — one of them fatal — now linked to raw milk from Miller’s Organic Farm in Pennsylvania.
Federal officials announced today that two people, one in California who recovered and one in Florida who died, were sickened in 2014 by Listeria bacteria “closely related genetically” to a strain isolated in samples of Miller’s Organic raw chocolate milk collected in November 2015 in California.
“Collaborative investigative efforts of state, local, and federal public health and regulatory officials indicate that raw milk produced by Miller’s Organic Farm in Bird-In-Hand, PA, is the likely source of this outbreak,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The raw milk samples, collected at the annual International Raw Milk Symposium in Anaheim, CA, by the Food and Drug Administration in November 2015, were linked this January via DNA matching to the two people who were sickened in 2014, according to the CDC outbreak announcement.
“Because Listeria was recently found in raw milk produced by Miller’s Organic Farm, we are concerned that contaminated raw milk and other raw dairy products from this company could still be on the market and make people sick. This investigation is ongoing,” the CDC reported.
Organizers of the symposium did not immediately respond to requests for comment today.
Miller’s Organic Farm is an Amish operation in Bird-in-Hand, PA, and is identified on its website as “a private membership organization.” It’s March price list shows its organic raw chocolate milk at $12 per gallon. No one from Miller’s Organic Farm responded to telephone calls this afternoon requesting comment.
Forensic lab work pays off
The link between the raw milk and the illnesses was discovered when the Listeria from samples collected by FDA at the symposium matched up with the DNA fingerprint of the Listeria bacteria isolated from the California and Florida patients. The match is an illustration of the ability of the CDC’s PulseNet database to identify far-flung outbreak victims and potential outbreak causes from distant sources.
“Once the two illnesses were identified in late January, public health officials worked over several weeks to interview them or their family members about the foods they may have eaten and other exposures in the month before their illness started,” the CDC reported.
“Interviews were conducted with the ill person from California and family members for both ill people. It was reported that both ill people drank raw milk before they got sick. The family of the deceased person in Florida reported purchasing raw milk from Miller’s Organic Farm.”
Local and state public health officials across the country are working with the CDC and PulseNet to identify any additional people who have been infected with the same Listeria isolates.
The sale of raw milk is prohibited across state lines. Some states allow in-state sales through herd-share programs where only people who buy a stake in a dairy herd or cow are allowed to buy the raw milk, which is not allowed to be sold at retail. A few states allow retail sales, despite warnings from health officials and scientists.
“Raw milk is milk from cows or other animals that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. This raw, unpasteurized milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Listeria, Salmonella, E. coli, and Campylobacter, which are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses and outbreaks,” according to the CDC.
“We recommend that people drink and eat only pasteurized dairy products. Learn more about the dangers of drinking raw milk at the CDC Food Safety and Raw Milk website.”

A History of E. coli Lawsuits
Source : http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/foodborne-illness-outbreaks/a-history-of-e-coli-lawsuits/#.Vu9KLU5JmUl
By Bill Marler (Mar 17, 2016)

The E. coli lawyers of Marler Clark have many years of experience working with clients on E. coli outbreak lawsuits.
E. coli are bacteria that can cause serious, sometimes fatal, infections in humans.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that E. coli causes 2,000 hospitalizations in the United States each year.
Ten percent of E. coli victims develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can cause kidney failure, damage to the central nervous system, and ultimately death.
The Marler Clark E. coli lawyers have unmatched experience representing victims of E. coli and HUS.  We have represented hundreds of victims of E. coli outbreaks traced to foods such as hamburgers, spinach, raw milk, water, and food served at restaurants.  The Marler Clark E. coli lawyers are the only lawyers in the nation with a practice focused exclusively on plaintiff foodborne illness litigation.
Our E. coli lawyers have represented victims of notable E. coli outbreaks such as the 2006 Dole Spinach E. coli outbreak, the 2007 Cargill beef E. coli outbreak, and the landmark 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak. Contact us today to learn more about our services.
•AFG / Supervalu E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Minnesota (2000)
•AgVenture Farms Petting Zoo E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Lawsuits – Florida (2005)
•Aunt Mid’s Lettuce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Michigan, Illinois, and Ontario (2008)
•Bauer Meat E. coli Litigation – Georgia (1998)
•Baugher’s Apple Cider E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Maryland (2010)
•Big Fresno Fair E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – California (2005)
•BJ’s Wholesale Club E. coli Litigation – New York and New Jersey (2002)
•Bravo Farms Gouda Cheese E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Southwestern US (2010)
•Burma Superstar E. coli Outbreak – California (2013)
•Camp Bournedale-South Shore Meats E. coli Outbreak Litigation – Rhode Island, Massachusetts (2009)
•Cargill E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Minnesota, Tennessee (2007)
•Carneco / Sam’s Club E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Wisconsin & Minnesota (2004)
•CCC Alternative Learning Daycare E. coli Outbreak lawsuit – Texas (2002)
•China Buffet E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Minnesota (2001)
•Cleveland County Fair E. coli Outbreak – North Carolina (2012)
•ConAgra Ground Beef E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2002)
•Country Cottage Restaurant E coli O111 Outbreak Lawsuits – Oklahoma (2008)
•Cozy Valley Raw Milk E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Washington State (2011)
•Crossroads Farm Petting Zoo E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – North Carolina (2004)
•Cuyahoga County E. coli outbreak – Ohio (2009)
•Dee Creek Farm E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Washington & Oregon (2005)
•Dole Lettuce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon (2005)
•Dole Spinach E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2006)
•Emmpak E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Wisconsin (2002)
•Excel E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Georgia (2001)
•Fairbank Farms E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2009)
•Federico’s Mexican Restaurant E. coli Outbreak – Arizona (2013)
•Finley Elementary School E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Washington (2001)
•Flanders Provision Co. E. coli Outbreak Litigation – Colorado, Nationwide (2005)
•Forest Ranch Fire Department Fundraiser E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – California (2008)
•Freshway Lettuce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Multistate (2010)
•Fresno Meat Market E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – California (2007)
•Glass Onion Catering & Gourmet Foods E. coli Outbreak – California, Washington & Arizona (2013)
•Gold Coast Produce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – California (2003)
•Golden Corral E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nebraska (1999)
•Habaneros E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Missouri (2003)
•Herb Depot & Autumn Olives Farm Raw Milk E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Missouri (2008)
•Interstate Meat E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Oregon, Washington & Idaho (2007)
•Ixtapa Mexican Restaurant E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Washington (2008)
•Jack in the Box E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Western States (1993)
•JBS Swift E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2009)
•Jimmy John’s and Sprouts Extraordinaire E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Colorado (2008)
•Jimmy John’s Clover Sprouts E. coli O26 Outbreak Lawsuits – Multistate (2012)
•Karl Ehmer Meats E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – New Jersey (2000)
•KFC E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Ohio (1999)
•Kid’s Korner Daycare E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Missouri (2004)
•Kindercare E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – California (2000)
•King Garden Restaurant E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Ohio (2002)
•Lane County Fair E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Oregon (2002)
•Los Burritos Mexicanos E. coli Outbreak – Illinois (2013)
•National Steak and Poultry E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2009)
•Nebraska Beef E. coli Outbreak – Nationwide (2008)
•Nebraska Beef E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Minnesota (2006)
•Nestle Toll House Cookie Dough E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2009)
•Odwalla E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Western States (1996)
•Olive Garden E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Oregon (2005)
•Organic Pastures E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – California (2006)
•Parsley E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Washington & Oregon (2005)
•Peninsula Village E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Tennessee (1999)
•PM Beef Holdings, Lunds & Byerly’s E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Minnesota (2007)
•Robeson Schools E. coli Outbreak Litigation – North Carolina (2001)
•Robinswood Pointe Senior Living Facility E. coli Outbreak Litigation – Washington (2005)
•Rochester Meat Company E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Wisconsin, California (2008)
•Rocky Mountain Natural Meats Bison E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Colorado, New York (2010)
•Romaine Lettuce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Washington State (2008)
•S & S Foods – Goshen Boy Scout Camp E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Virginia (2008)
•Schnucks Romaine Lettuce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuit – Missouri, Multistate (2011)
•Sizzler E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Wisconsin (2000)
•Sodexho Spinach E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – California (2003)
•Spokane Produce E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Washington, Oregon, Idaho (2002)
•State Garden Spinach & Spring Mix E. coli Outbreak – New York (2012)
•Stop & Shop E. coli Case – New Hampshire (2007)
•Taco John’s E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Iowa and Minnesota (2006)
•Tanimura & Antle Romaine Lettuce E. coli Outbreak – Canada (2012)
•Topps and Price Chopper E. coli Case – New York (2005)
•Topps Meats E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Nationwide (2007)
•Tyson Fresh Meats E. coli Lawsuit – Ohio (2011)
•United Food Group E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Western States (2007)
•Valley Meats E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania (2009)
•Wendy’s E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Oregon (2000)
•Wendy’s E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Utah (2006)
•White Water Water Park E. coli Outbreak Lawsuits – Georgia (1998)

Who’s watching the chickens?
Source : http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/03/federal-agency-food-safety-regulation-000068
By Danny Vinik (Mar 16, 2016)
In 2010, two producers recalled more than half a billion eggs after regulators traced an outbreak of salmonella to unsanitary conditions at two Iowa farms. It was the largest egg recall in history, ultimately sickening nearly 2,000 people and garnering national headlines.
Investigators eventually reported a wide array of safety violations, from live rodents in the henhouses to manure oozing out of the buildings. In a congressional hearing about a month after the recall, lawmakers asked regulators why they hadn’t noticed the conditions earlier. One of the farms had a history of safety violations. How could they have missed it?
At first, this looked like an embarrassing lapse. A failure at this scale suggested that the federal food safety system — which officials often credit for the world’s safest food supply — had somehow missed problems even though millions of the eggs were packed in cartons stamped with a U.S. Department of Agriculture grade for quality.
But in fact, regulators hadn’t missed it. A 2012 report from the Department of Agriculture’s inspector general discovered that officials from the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) “were aware that the company’s egg-laying barns had tested positive for [salmonella] over 4 months before the recall was issued.” An inspector from another agency, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), had visited the farm two weeks before the recall and “he observed some of the same sanitation issues (e.g., rodent activity and high bird manure levels) that FDA later reported [after the outbreak was discovered].”
The problem wasn’t that inspectors weren’t aware. The problem was that the agencies that discovered the health hazards weren’t responsible for overseeing that part of the food safety system. They simply had not passed on what they knew to the agencies that had the authority.
“On an issue that’s so important and sickened so many people — by your estimation, 100,000 cases a year — and it’s a high-risk food, why wouldn’t there be a tendency for cross-communication between a federal agency under the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration?” said Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) at the hearing that September.
What emerges, if you get to the heart of the reports about the outbreak in Iowa, is a bewildering division of responsibilities within the federal government over the job of regulating eggs. The Food and Drug Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has jurisdiction over eggs in their shells, while the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), at USDA, is responsible for eggs processed into egg products. The Agricultural Marketing Service sets quality and grade standards of shell eggs, while APHIS helps ensure that laying hens do not have salmonella. The feed the hens eat? That’s the FDA again.
“That’s madness,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told POLITICO.
It’s not just eggs, of course. The modern U.S. food safety system is the responsibility of a patchwork of 15 federal agencies, plus many more at the state and local level. The FDA, for instance, is responsible for regulating cheese pizzas, but pepperoni pizzas fall under the purview of FSIS. The multitude of food safety regulations are a point of pride, proof that the country has come a long way since the days when rats swarmed over mountains of rancid meat that became the next morning’s breakfast sausage. But critics have long seized on the sheer complexity of that system as one of its signal flaws. Complexity doesn’t create errors, necessarily, but as the Iowa egg farms outbreak showed, it can create obstacles to safeguarding public health.
“We’re the only developed country in the world that doesn’t have a single food agency,” said Glenn Morris, director of the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida. “It is crazy.”
At its core, then, this is an argument about the ultimate goals of the U.S. food safety system. Is it acceptable that 128,000 Americans are hospitalized and 3,000 die each year from food-borne illnesses? Is it worth blowing up the current system and going through a disruptive transition to a streamlined agency, without any results guaranteed?
“People need to know what's going on. Food-borne illness is preventable, and we lose 3,000 people every year,” said DeLauro, who supports a single food agency. “They die.”
THE MODERN U.S. food safety system dates back to a book that nauseated a nation. In 1905, Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle,” a scathing indictment of Chicago’s filthy meatpacking factories. The ensuing uproar over unsanitary food led President Theodore Roosevelt a year later to sign two bills, which for the first time provided a national policy toward regulating food in America.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act established sanitary standards at meat processing plants and mandated that officials at the Department of Agriculture inspect all carcasses at those plants — basically to look for dirt and other obvious contaminants. “We didn’t even know what bacteria was back then,” said Bill Marler, a Seattle-based food safety attorney. “We didn’t understand germ theory the way we do today.”
The Pure Food and Drug Act set standards for food and drug labels and led to the creation of the FDA. Both laws were limited to regulating foods moving in interstate commerce to ensure that the laws were constitutional.
Those two laws from 1906 still shape how the nation’s food safety system works. The country’s main meat regulator, FSIS, was established in 1977 and requires that all meat- and poultry-processing facilities have an inspector on site at all times. The FDA, which took on its current name in 1930, is responsible for monitoring virtually all of the remaining 80 percent of the food supply. But over time, the two agencies have developed vastly different cultures, thanks in part to their different operational responsibilities. FDA inspectors, for instance, are required to have a college degree, while FSIS inspectors are not.
Along with FDA and FSIS, 13 other agencies are involved in the food safety system. For instance, Customs and Border Protection is responsible for inspecting imports of food products, plants and live animals. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticide residues in food. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and assists with data management. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration establishes quality standards and inspection practices for grain and related agricultural products.
Countless state and local agencies, which are often closest to the actual food production process, play key roles in the food safety system. But their relationships with their federal colleagues are uneven at best. FDA works closely with many state departments of agriculture, for instance. FSIS, on the other hand, largely works by itself in the states.
“FDA has authority to inspect facilities that we inspect,” said Jamie Adams, director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture. “If they don’t include us in what they are working on, we may be veering off in a different direction.”
This fragmentation creates some very odd divisions of duties. Adding pepperoni to a pizza moves the regulatory oversight from the FDA, which handles cheese and grain, to FSIS, which regulates meats. An open-faced, pre-packaged sandwich with meat on it is FSIS’ responsibility, but add a second slice of bread to make it a closed-face sandwich and FDA has jurisdiction. FDA is responsible for seafood — except for catfish, which falls under FSIS’ jurisdiction. Why? Who knows?
This split of responsibilities frustrates businesses that must comply with multiple sets of regulations and even confuses the regulators themselves. But not everyone sees the strange and incomprehensible rules as a significant safety problem. “That’s a great rhetorical point,” Stuart Pape, head of the FDA practice at the law firm Polsinelli, said about the oft-cited pizza example. “It doesn’t prove very much to me about the system and the inadequacies of the system.”
Even some proponents of a single food agency say Pape has a point. They argue that coordination issues such as happened in the 2010 salmonella outbreak are not the ultimate problem with the fragmented system. Instead, the problem is subtler, and much broader: With so many agencies collecting data, it’s nearly impossible to integrate all that information in useful ways to trace food-borne illnesses. “You have multiple agencies collecting the data, frequently at cross-purposes,” Morris said.
Morris compared the U.S. food safety system to that of the Netherlands, which is fully integrated and allows regulators to monitor both human and animal microorganisms and then match them together to trace an outbreak to its source. He points out that in the United States, one agency collects samples of human microorganisms and another agency collects samples of chicken and farm animal microorganisms. “[But] there is not a unified system that pulls those data streams together and is able to take full advantage of the fact that we have both types of data available,” he said.
In a sense, America has a food safety system that would be far more effective if it figured out a way to operate as one system.
IN RESPONSE TO this fragmented system, food safety agencies have hatched what must seem to outsiders like an only-in-Washington scheme: They’ve created a set of entirely new organizations just to help coordinate with one another. The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network — FoodNet, for short — is a collaboration of CDC, FDA, FSIS and 10 state health departments. The IFORC (Interagency Foodborne Outbreak Response Collaboration) involves CDC, FDA and FSIS to coordinate their investigations into food-borne-illness outbreaks. EPA, FDA, FSIS and other agencies work together within another umbrella organization called the IRCG (Interagency Residue Control Group) to address chemical residue issues. Got that?
In 2011, FDA, FSIS and CDC formed an interagency working group, known as the Interagency Food Safety Analytics Collaboration (IFSAC), to better share data and develop strategies to attribute food-borne illnesses to certain pathogens. This was the first concerted effort among the three agencies to share information and coordinate their approaches to determining the source of food-borne illnesses.
These task forces are an improvement, but only because a few years ago there was really no coordination at all. Still, the fragmented system limits IFSAC's effectiveness. The collaboration that is happening, for instance, is focused on individual topics — salmonella, for instance — which means the food safety system is basically adding a second patchwork to its first patchwork. In its most recent report on federal food safety oversight, the Government Accountability Office determined that “these mechanisms do not provide for broad-based, centralized collaboration that would allow FDA, FSIS and other agencies to look across their individual food safety programs and determine how they all contribute to federal food safety goals.” Since 2007, GAO has released numerous reports recommending that Congress consolidate the food safety programs into a single agency.
So what might such an agency look like? In 2010, more than a dozen experts produced a report for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine titled “Enhancing Food Safety” that analyzed the current food safety system and offered recommendations for how to move to an integrated system. The 588-page report advised the government to consolidate food safety responsibilities in a single agency and to reform the inspection process to move to a risk-based system where resources are devoted to high-risk producers and away from low-risk ones. Furthermore, the integration must happen both among agencies at the federal level and across state and local departments as well.
In January 2011, President Barack Obama signed into law the Food Safety Modernization Act, the most sweeping changes to the FDA in more than half a century. FSMA followed the recommendations of that massive report, moving the FDA toward more of a risk-based system. Food facilities that were deemed high-risk to public health would now face an inspection every three years, while low-risk ones might only see an inspector every five years. The law also strengthened the FDA’s authority, but on the crucial issue of coordination between agencies, it really didn’t do much. It has also been plagued by funding shortfalls and neglect from key officials. Regulators have yet to finalize key regulations, and consumer advocates are disappointed with the pace of implementation.
Yet, moving to a risk-based system, even within a single food agency, may be easier said than done. Consider the USDA’s recent attempt to update its IT systems so that FSIS inspectors could develop a database of real-time information that would indicate which attributes of a plant pose the greatest risk to consumers.
But the effort has not gone as planned. After spending nearly $100 million on the project, inspectors found the devices cumbersome to use, and many plants did not have connectivity. Last August, the USDA inspector general criticized the program and said FSIS needs to reassess whether the system will actually help the agency. The inability to collect such data makes it difficult to move to a perfectly risk-based system.
“FSIS has got major, major issues,” said Tony Corbo, the senior lobbyist for the food campaign at Food & Water Watch. “I’ll be as blunt as I can: They tried to shine shit, and they can’t get away with it.”
IF THE U.S. food safety system is so obviously fragmented, and independent observers such as GAO have been calling for a more unified approach, why haven’t lawmakers addressed it? Inertia, of course, is one big reason.
“At the state level, we always say if you were starting from scratch, would you build it how it looks today? Probably not, and probably not at the federal,” said Katy Coba, director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. “But the fact of the matter is we’re not starting from scratch.”
In Washington, everything comes down to jurisdiction, and the modern food safety system has the misfortune of being split up among different committees. FDA and its $4.9 billion budget (about $1 billion of which goes to food safety) are overseen by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate and the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House. FSIS and its $900 million budget are overseen by the Agriculture committees in both chambers. Combining the two agencies into a unified single food agency would require one committee to give up jurisdiction and the budgetary power that comes with it. That’s a difficult sell in Washington.
“Nobody wants to give up turf in Washington,” DeLauro said.
DeLauro has introduced legislation over the years to create a single food safety agency, and Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, introduced a companion bill in the Senate. That legislation has never gone anywhere. In his 2016 budget, Obama proposed a new “Food Safety Administration” that would have jurisdiction over the entire food supply and would be housed in HHS. “The new agency would be charged with pursuing a modern, science based food safety regulatory regime drawing on best practices of both agencies,” the White House explained.
It received some mixed reviews among food policy experts, even those who support the idea of a single food agency. The proposal also fell flat on Capitol Hill, and, in this year’s budget, the president dropped the idea.
It’s not about jurisdiction, say the opponents. It’s about disruption that would do more harm than good. Mike Gruber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, argues that consolidating food oversight responsibilities should not be considered until lawmakers have time to see the results of the Food Safety Modernization Act.
“It’s like going through a massive remodeling of a home, and then before all is said and done, before the switches have been put in place and new locks have put on the brand new doors — do we need to go through another overhaul?” he said.
Other critics of the proposal point to the Department of Homeland Security as an example of consolidation gone awry. What seemed like a good idea, putting 22 agencies under one roof, turned out to be an exercise in duplicating efforts and wasting resources.
“My least favorite idea,” Pape said about a single food agency. He added: “People are unavoidably trying to spend a lot of time figuring out what is the new order, how do you get anything done, who do you report to, as opposed to doing your job.”
This fear is shared by many supporters of a single food agency, who believe the transition would be rocky but ultimately worth it. They see two big food-inspection cultures that, right now, are very different, with fundamentally different ideas about what monitoring even looks like, and the costs of trying to merge them would be significant. But those obstacles, while real, can be overcome, they say.
An intermediate idea has also emerged. The Enhancing Food Safety report suggested that an independent risk analysis and data management center would help improve coordination between the agencies and separate the responsibilities for identifying and inspecting the risks. Food experts consider the latter policy particularly important, as there is an inherent conflict of interest between identifying risks and inspecting them.
“If you created a single risk-assessment center and left FDA to do the risk management of the foods they regulate and USDA to do the risk management of the foods they regulate, that might work, and you might not need to actually create a single food agency,” said Barbara Kowalcyk, a research analyst at RTI International who contributed to the report.
This intermediate approach would create yet another food agency, but it would avoid the disruptive task of trying to integrate two agencies with very different cultures and instead look to solve the data management issues while retaining the current structure.
In the end, the answer from food policy experts on whether to move to a single food agency often seems to rest on a single question: Is the current food safety system working? Depends on what your expectation is, or your threshold for food-borne illness.
“This system is failing,” DeLauro said, adding, “American consumers are being sickened, they're being hospitalized and sometimes killed by deficiencies in our food safety system.”
Adams, of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, said a country that has one of the safest food supplies in the world doesn’t need radical change.
“We have the safest and most abundant food supply in the entire world and for that Americans are very fortunate,” Adams said. “That being said, that doesn't mean we can't be better. But we will never have a system where you have absolutely no risk.”

Restaurant Microwave Use: Bad at Cooking, Good at Reheating
Source : https://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2016/restaurant-microwave-use-bad-at-cooking-good-at-reheating/
By Linda Larsen (Mar 16, 2016)
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) conducted a study looking at the types of food service establishments that use microwave ovens, how those ovens are used, the types of food cooked, and the level of compliance with U.S. FDA guidelines. Microwave ovens are good at reheating food, but can be a food safety hazard when used to cook foods such as meat, chicken, or eggs because of uneven heating or improper use.
MDH collected data from 60 food establishments in the state, including fast-food restaurants, sit-down restaurants, school food service, nursing homes, hotels, motels, and day care centers. The food prep was classified as pre-serve, cook serve, or complex.
Most of the establishments in this study reported using microwave ovens to warm commercial ready-to-eat products and to warm foods for palatability. No minimum temps are required for these foods because they do not require pathogen destruction (except when RTE foods are contaminated).
But, food establishments using complex preparation (stove top, microwave, plus oven) did use the microwave for processes that require heating to a temperature to kill pathogens. For those establishments, most managers reported following FDA recommendations for cooking and heating, but many did not let the food stand for 2 minutes on a solid surface, as required by the government, for the food to reach a safe final internal temperature. The study recommends that additional training be given to employees of these establishments.
The USDA offers information on cooking safely in a microwave oven that applies to consumer use too. Those rules state that large cuts of meat should not be cooked on high power, because the exterior could be overcooked by the time the interior reaches safe temperatures. Stirring or rotating food halfway through the cooking time can help eliminate cold spots where bacteria can survive and make someone side.
Food should never be partially cooked in a microwave and held to finish cooking in a conventional oven or on the grill. And standing time is important for cooking to complete. Let the food stand for 2 minutes before checking the final temperature with a reliable food thermometer. The food should stand on a solid surface, and not on a wire rack, so the heat doesn’t dissipate as it stands.

Food safety shortcomings putting Canadians at risk: union
Source : http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/food-safety-shortcomings-putting-canadians-at-risk-union-1.2819729
By John Cotter (Mar 16, 2016)
The union that represents Canada's food safety inspectors says many of its members feel there aren't enough front-line staff to ensure that rules designed to protect consumers are followed, especially in meat plants.
The risk is being amplified by uncertainty over changes being planned to the system by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said Bob Kingston, president of the Agriculture Union.
"Inspectors worry that a major food-borne illness is on the horizon and with good reason," Kingston said in releasing results of an online poll last month of 580 agency staff.
The Abacus Data survey of inspectors was commissioned by the union. It indicates just over half who responded believe the staff shortage is affecting food safety.
The problem is more pronounced in meat plants, with seven out of 10 inspectors saying there aren't enough people on the job to ensure that the standards are followed.
About 70 per cent of those surveyed worry Canada is likely to face a major food borne illness due to food safety shortcomings.
The results are the latest salvo by the union in a battle over staff shortages.
Kingston said it was important to reinforce the message because there is widespread confusion as the agency prepares to overhaul the food inspection system for the second time in less than 10 years.
The last round of changes in 2007 gave food companies more responsibility for documenting their safety practices.
The changes led to meat inspectors spending more time reviewing company records than watching meat plant employees and operations, he said, noting the 2008 listeriosis outbreak involving cold cuts at a Maple Leaf Foods plant in Toronto. The bacteria made 56 people sick in seven provinces and 21 people died.
An E. coli outbreak in 2012 linked to beef from an XL Foods plant in southern Alberta made 18 people ill.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency responded to the survey with assurances that the country has a strong food safety inspection system.
"While no food system can guarantee zero risk, the CFIA's approach to inspection ensures that its resources are focused where the risk is highest and verifies that industry is producing safe food for consumers," the agency said in an email.
There have been no reductions to inspectors in meat plants and the number of field staff increased by almost 20 per cent between 2007 and last year, the agency said. There are plans to deliver inspections more efficiently in the future.
Kingston said food inspectors are still waiting for details of the changes expected later this year, which are to include a greater emphasis on electronic record keeping.
"Not all of what they are taking about is negative, it is just you don't do it when you have a skeleton crew," he said.
"The concern is that there is going to be a lot of things fall through the cracks."
The union said the previous Conservative government cut the agency's annual budget by $56 million.
During the federal election campaign the Liberals promised to bolster spending on food safety inspections by $80 million over four years.

Inspectors worried about food safety
Source : https://blackburnnews.com/bri-national/2016/03/16/inspectors-worried-about-food-safety/
By The Canadian Press (Mar 16, 2016)
The union that represents Canada’s food safety inspectors says many of its members feel there aren’t enough front-line staff to ensure that rules designed to protect consumers are followed, especially in meat plants.
The risk is being amplified by uncertainty over changes being planned to the system by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said Bob Kingston, president of the Agriculture Union.
“Inspectors worry that a major food-borne illness is on the horizon and with good reason,” Kingston said in releasing results of an online poll last month of 580 agency staff.
The Abacus Data survey of inspectors was commissioned by the union. It indicates just over half who responded believe the staff shortage is affecting food safety.
The problem is more pronounced in meat plants, with seven out of 10 inspectors saying there aren’t enough people on the job to ensure that the standards are followed.
About 70 per cent of those surveyed worry Canada is likely to face a major food borne illness due to food safety shortcomings.
The results are the latest salvo by the union in a battle over staff shortages.
Kingston said it was important to reinforce the message because there is widespread confusion as the agency prepares to overhaul the food inspection system for the second time in less than 10 years.
The last round of changes in 2007 gave food companies more responsibility for documenting their safety practices.
The changes led to meat inspectors spending more time reviewing company records than watching meat plant employees and operations, he said, noting the 2008 listeriosis outbreak involving cold cuts at a Maple Leaf Foods plant in Toronto. The bacteria made 56 people sick in seven provinces and 21 people died.
An E. coli outbreak in 2012 linked to beef from an XL Foods plant in southern Alberta made 18 people ill.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency responded to the survey with assurances that the country has a strong food safety inspection system.
“While no food system can guarantee zero risk, the CFIA’s approach to inspection ensures that its resources are focused where the risk is highest and verifies that industry is producing safe food for consumers,” the agency said in an email.
There have been no reductions to inspectors in meat plants and the number of field staff increased by almost 20 per cent between 2007 and last year, the agency said. There are plans to deliver inspections more efficiently in the future.
Kingston said food inspectors are still waiting for details of the changes expected later this year, which are to include a greater emphasis on electronic record keeping.
“Not all of what they are taking about is negative, it is just you don’t do it when you have a skeleton crew,” he said.
“The concern is that there is going to be a lot of things fall through the cracks.”
The union said the previous Conservative government cut the agency’s annual budget by $56 million.
During the federal election campaign the Liberals promised to bolster spending on food safety inspections by $80 million over four years.

Listeria, Salmonella and Escherichia coli: Oh My!
Source : http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/enewsletter/listeria-salmonella-and-escherichia-coli-oh-my/
By Brent L. Reichert (Mar 15, 2016)
Despite a food manufacturer and retailer’s best efforts, contamination can happen. If your company should get that dreaded phone call, you need to know what to do to overcome your fears and take care of your business and consumers. Your company can survive and thrive, as long as you accurately handle all steps of the recovery process: sending out the initial food recall notice, working with your crisis management team, reevaluating your prevention procedures and recovering your losses.
The Goals of Proper Food Recall Crisis Management
There are three important goals that your company must work toward in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak:
1. Protect consumers. You must do everything reasonably possible to limit the public’s exposure to the contaminated product. Quickly assess the product involved, recall the product, identify the origin and cause of the contamination, and prevent future contamination.
2. Maintain your company’s reputation. Protecting and maintaining the good name, reputation, and viability of your company is second only to ensuring the health and safety of your consumers. You must commit to maintaining customer confidence in your brand both during and after the recall.
3. Recover any losses. For years, food manufacturers suffered all the financial losses related to a food recall. This is no longer necessary. With the right legal counsel by your side, you can recoup the money you lost due to the recall and the fault of others.    
All three goals should help determine the actions you take throughout the recall process.
The 10-Step Guide to Managing a Food Recall
When presented with a food contamination incident, you must work closely with your regulatory counsel to determine whether a recall is necessary. If the answer is “yes,” you must work quickly and accurately to address the situation, manage the logistics, create a recall plan and take appropriate precautionary actions to prevent future foodborne illness outbreaks.
1. Meet immediately with your crisis management team. Include on this team your regulatory affairs specialist, director of public relations/communications, director of quality assurance and food safety, sanitation manager, procurement manager, production manager, risk/insurance manager, in-house counsel and appropriate outside counsel and external consultants. This team should be determined as part of crisis management planning, well in advance of any pending crisis.
2. Provide public notice of the issue and recall. To prevent further illness and capture the suspect product, you must determine how wide a net to cast on your recall so consumers know which products to avoid and return. Your recall notice should include detailed product identification information along with a mechanism for concerned individuals to contact your company and return the product.
3. Determine the source and cause of the foodborne illness. You must find the origin and cause of the contamination and related illnesses. You must also determine the best way to isolate and prevent that cause as you do not want to have the same issue happen again. While the regulatory officials will investigate the contamination incident, you must conduct your own investigation with the assistance of outside counsel and outside consultants. This is necessary in order to keep and maintain the critical work product and attorney-client privileges.
4. Collect all contracts and indemnification agreements related to the ingredient and product suppliers. This documentation will become integral to any legal action stemming from the contamination, as well as to planning how your company will move forward after the incident is closed. As part of your Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan, you should already have the agreed upon purity and quality assurance standards and continuing food guaranties signed by your suppliers. The government investigators will inquire about this paperwork and you should present it to prevent the assessment of any penalties under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
5. Notify the appropriate suppliers in the food chain. Sometimes you will not know exactly what the contaminant is or where it came from. In that case, you must notify all potential suppliers and transporters along the distribution chain to preserve your claims.
6. Collect, preserve and test food samples. Create a plan for which product and ingredients to collect, keep, test and ultimately destroy. Keep detailed records and identify where and how long you will store your samples.
7. Notify your insurance carriers and collect and document your financial costs and losses. In order to fully collect your losses, immediately begin keeping records of lost sales as well as the time spent and costs incurred while dealing with all of the necessary tasks to notify consumers and collect, test, store and ultimately destroy the product pursuant to regulatory requirements.
8. Review your HACCP Plan, Good Manufacturing Processes, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Sanitation SOPs and Supplier Audits. You may need to review one or all of these based on the source and cause of the contamination. In many cases, you may find that your issue is not with the procedures themselves but with the suppliers’ handling of those procedures or the fault of other parties. During this process, work with your outside counsel to maintain your attorney-client and work product privileges.
9. Coordinate legal actions. You will need to coordinate both the defense of the contamination and illness claims, and recovery from your insurance carriers and against the at-fault suppliers, transporters or other parties. Be sure to hire outside counsel that has experience with both food contamination issues and insurance.
10. After the recall is over, reevaluate your preventions plans and procedures. Review each aspect of these plans and procedures to identify options for tightening up your processes or the processes of suppliers. This will improve avoidance of future contamination and foodborne illnesses. Based on this review, you may have to make the decision to change product ingredients or change suppliers.
Conclusion
Food manufacturers must tread carefully in the wake of a food recall. With this guide in hand, you can do just that. To ensure that you follow all aspects of this process correctly and that your company is well-protected throughout, work with attorneys and consultants who are knowledgeable, responsible and tough enough to handle the situation at hand.
Brent L. Reichert is partner at Robins Kaplan LLP and has more than 30 years of experience handling complex litigation, including cases of food contamination, recalls and the recovery of costs and losses caused by food contamination outbreaks.

Consumers want transparency, not just see-through packaging
Source : http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/03/124509/#.Vu9ULk5JmUl
By News Desk (Mar 14, 2016)
Consumers are becoming increasingly wary of what they didn’t know about their food; more concerned that food processors might be intentionally hiding things from them. A story published by Forbes in fall 2015 pointed out the dangers of not being upfront. They asked processors that frightening question: “What did you know and when did you know it?”
The story cited focus group research conducted by The Center for Food Integrity (CFI). Participants were asked to “give their reaction to the statement that GMOs have been used for nearly 20 years with no reports of ill health effects.”
Rather than being comforted by what should have been perceived as proof of the safety of GMOs, the focus group participants were alarmed at the duplicity.
“This is beyond scary to me,” one woman replied. “I feel like I’ve been deceived. The fact that we’ve been eating this stuff since 1996? Why weren’t they providing more information all along about what I’m eating?”
With the competing scientific opinions put forth about the inherent safety of food ingredients, her concern was understandable. Yesterday’s warnings about the dangers of a high-protein diet can turn into tomorrow’s dire statements about the lack of protein. Carbs go from bad to good to bad again in just a few years.
Shifting sands of consumer expectations
At the Food Integrity Summit this past fall, Charlie Arnot, CEO of CFI, summed up the sentiment from the focus group while speaking to industry leaders.
“Transparency is no longer optional. It’s a basic consumer expectation,” Arnot said.
Food companies should know that a skeleton in a processing closet won’t stay there for long. The door will inevitably be flung open. An example from recent years is Jamie Oliver’s campaign about lean, finely-textured beef.
His washing machine and liquid ammonia demonstration helped thrust the term ‘pink slime’ into the public’s vernacular and forced many food companies to abandon its use as an ingredient. It wasn’t the science behind the product that killed one company and seriously wounded another, it was public perception driven by video and sound bites.
The multi-syllabic list of ingredients on food labels — all “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) — and accepted by various government agencies, might mean longer shelf life, less clumping or no product separation. However, activists can also use one of them to generate headlines using phrases such as “yoga mat bread.”
The marketing consequences can be lethal
A research project conducted by Cone Communications on 2015 suggested that almost 9 out of 10 Americans will seriously consider not buying a product if they feel they are being deceived.
Arnot said he believes food processors have to be ahead of the social learning curve. Rather than wait until bad news breaks, they have to reach a consensus on what they track and what they share with the public. He is emphatic on one point, though: You don’t want to be naked in a glass house.
“Nothing you do is undiscoverable in today’s communication environment,” he said. “You’d better start working out now because people are going to see you. We have to embrace the consumers’ right to know and to give them the information they want.”
Arnot suggests establishing a transparency framework. The Smart Label program developed by the GMA is an example of such a framework. It establishes a basic label but allows the processor to provide more information, audience specific information, based on what consumers want to know.
Some observers say it’s important to establish what a processor can say, based on what he knows about his suppliers. Arnot said that it might not be possible to track ingredients all the way to the point of origin.
“If a processor has a reputation for transparency,” Arnot said, “The public will forgive him if he has to come back and say, ‘We thought we were giving you the best information at the time but we’ve now discovered that information wasn’t as good as it should have been so and here’s some new information.’
“Science has become very good and telling us we can do something, but ‘can’ and ‘should’ aren’t the same thing. Science will tell us that we can do something, society will tell us if we should.”
Consumers demand transparency
The CFI study asked consumers who they thought was responsible for food production transparency. Overwhelmingly the consumers put the onus directly on food companies, calling them primarily accountable “for the impact of food on health and the environment, food safety, and even animal well being.”
The feds are getting into the act, too, now. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 doesn’t mandate specific traceability or transparency changes, but the intent is clear.
The government is increasingly pursuing criminal charges in what some of the food industry sees as a new concern about violations of the public trust, especially if food borne illnesses are involved. Criminally actionable offenses can lead to jail time for everyone from the cleaning crew to the corner office.
As a result, food processors must commit to transparently communicating, letting the public know what is in food and why. They have to be willing to talk with consumers and to fully answer their questions.
John Stanton, writing for Food Processing magazine, suggested something that might be even more encompassing.
He said watching the growth of fact-checking organizations that are reviewing political candidates’ statements made him “think about all the comments that appear on the Internet about food and beverage, most of which are negative…”
“It seems to me some independent organization funded by the food industry — but remaining independent — should look at each and every Internet posting and respond with ‘the truth,’ ” Stanton said.

 

 

 

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. FoodHACCP.com. If you have any question, contact to info@foodhaccp.com
TEL) 1-866-494-1208 FAX) 1-253-486-1936