Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Created by The Packer's National Editor Tom Karst

Monday, September 3, 2007

Spinach fallout: More headlines

Here are some headlines gleaned from the Web and K-State Food Safety Network on the follow up coverage to the recent voluntary recall of spinach.

Florez off base on inspections From The Salinas Californian:
There's little doubt the salmonella contamination of fresh, bagged spinach discovered this past Friday by King City-based grower-shipper Metz Fresh will amount to another setback for the embattled salad industry of the Salinas Valley, thanks to a limelight-loving legislator who wants to make a state, if not federal, case out of it.
That doesn't mean it's a reasonable setback.


The Salinas Californian and the Vegetable Industrial Complex California Progress report slams The Californian for its editorial.

Recall renews debate on safety of leafy greens The Sacramento Bee reports:
Five months after the produce industry rolled out new guidelines in an effort to bring safer spinach and lettuce to America's tables, another spinach recall is shining a spotlight on what that approach can -- and can't -- ensure.
The Salinas Valley company that yanked back 68,000 pounds of spinach this week, fearing salmonella contamination, says it found the problem by going far beyond the updated safety guidelines.
From that, people can reach almost any conclusion that suits their politics: We need tougher laws. Or market forces will keep our produce safe. Or the new guidelines are helping. Or they aren't.


Later...

One of the biggest questions is why Metz Fresh didn't hang onto its spinach until the test results were in.
Such a test-and-hold approach is "the smartest move," said Horsfall of the leafy greens group.
Said attorney Marler: "Testing without holding tells you whether a product is contaminated or not, but if it is, it's already out your door and you have a problem. I don't think it's wise to test it and ship it."
Larsen said Metz Fresh began shipping because the quick tests it uses for salmonella often produce false positives, and the more precise confirmation tests can take three to 12 days.
Yet Michael Hansen, a senior scientist for Consumers Union, said a company pushing hard can do that second round of confirmation testing in 24 to 48 hours.
At the same time, Marler and others praised Metz Fresh for testing at all. While it's not a solution to all problems, and tainted products can still slip through, testing helps the industry identify weak points and improve safety, Marler said.



TK: If we are saying test and hold is the right approach, are we saying that we are willing to regulate that every single marketer of fresh spinach in the U.S. have a test and hold policy? Who will pay for such an approach? Take arguments to their eventual conclusion, don't just engage in 20/20 hindsight that levels unsparing criticism at Metz Fresh for an approach that is actually above and beyond the leafy greens marketing agreement.

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

At September 3, 2007 at 8:44:00 PM CDT , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who will pay for these additional procedures? I would suggest that the government at some level should contribute more in the way of staff and operational costs to fund such additional tests. It is, after all, the responsibility of the government to inspect and for the last 30 years the inspection programs of the federal government hav been eviscerated by conservative administrations. Let's staff up and get to work protecting our citizens.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home