Fw: [BITES-L] bites Oct. 22/10 -- II

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

---

From: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>

Sender: Bites <BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:37:29 -0500

To: BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU<BITES-L@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU>

ReplyTo: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>

Subject: [BITES-L] bites Oct. 22/10 -- II

bites Oct. 22/10 -- II

Fresh Express makes marketing missteps

Know thy suppliers: UK Kosher Deli fined for supplying meat unfit for human consumption

Raw milk is not a cosmetic; AUSTRALIAN Co-op fined

FINLAND: Harmful bacteria in ground meat

TEXAS: Health violation cited at Katy restaurant

US: FDA heightens focus on retail food safety

US: Foremost Foods International, Inc. issues recall on certain Tomi dried seafood products

TEXAS: Restaurant violations

US: Western Milling LLC voluntarily recalls Universal Turkey and Kruse G.B. Turkey Grower Feeds because of possible health risk to animals

CANADA: Comprehensive review of the Compliance Verification System (CVS)

how to subscribe

Fresh Express makes marketing missteps
22.oct.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144728/10/10/22/fresh-express-makes-marketing-missteps
That's the headline on Greg Johnson's column in The Packer today, criticizing the way Fresh Express' announced its super-duper new produce wash.
I'm all for marketing food safety, but only if it can be thoroughly backed up.
Johnson complains this kind of promotion violates the generally agreed upon, though nonbinding, industry standard after the 2006 E. coli spinach outbreak that the produce industry is in food safety together. 

Once companies say they're safer than others, consumers can infer that some produce is less safe or worse, unsafe, and they stop buying.
Tom Stenzel, president and CEO of the United Fresh Produce Association, said, "Food safety should never be a competitive advantage. If a new product improves food safety, we should share it with the whole industry."
Ed Loyd, director of corporate communications for Chiquita, said the company isn't marketing its method as safer than others because it's offering FreshRinse technology to competitors.
Several competitors say Fresh Express' claims about its new wash are exaggerated or flat-out false, and they have not been verified by any third party.
http://thepacker.com/Fresh-Express-makes-marketing-missteps/Article.aspx?oid=1276010&fid=PACKER-OPINION&aid=144

top

Know thy suppliers: UK Kosher Deli fined for supplying meat unfit for human consumption
22.oct.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144726/10/10/22/know-thy-suppliers-uk-kosher-deli-fined-supplying-meat-unfit-human-consumption
A kosher food supplier has been ordered to pay £27,000 by the courts for selling a pot of chopped liver containing a potentially deadly bacteria.
Bosses of Kosher Deli UK Ltd., based on the Claremont Industrial Estate, in Claremont Way, Cricklewood, admitted supplying 1kg of meat contaminated with Listeria to a residential care home in May 2008.
An investigation into the company, lead by Barnet Council's environmental health team, was launched after an 89-year-old care home resident was diagnosed with listeriosis.
A judge at Wood Green Crown Court on Monday said serious issues at Kosher Deli had been set out in an audit report by the Meat Hygiene Service, but accepted the offence represented a lapse over a short period of time in a business which had been operating for 74 years.
Albert Bendahan, managing director of Kosher Deli, said it was "exasperating" that the case was brought based on one allegation from a care home resident, and insisted the family run company took every precaution to ensure food safety was maintained, adding,
"We continuously test and monitor our products, instruct and train our staff and live up to the requirements and beyond of the Food Standards Agency Guidelines."
Try harder.
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8470749.Kosher_Deli_fined_for_supplying_meat_unfit_for_human_consumption/

top

Raw milk is not a cosmetic; AUSTRALIAN Co-op fined
22.oct.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144727/10/10/22/raw-milk-not-cosmetic-australian-co-op-fined
The Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Australia, sounds like a groovy place, especially when Cleopatra's Bath Milk, a raw milk product which is labeled as a cosmetic, is available.
The Sunshine Coast Daily reports that Maleny's Maple Street Co-op was fined $2,500 in court yesterday after it was found guilty of misleading and deceiving the public.
The sale of unpasteurised milk is prohibited under Queensland's Food Production Safety Act 2000.
After a complaint from a resident in February last year, a plain-clothes Queensland Health officer purchased a two-litre bottle of Cleopatra's Bath Milk.
While it could not be proven the sales assistant had promoted the raw milk for consumption, the prosecution focused on the fact that the unpasteurised milk had been displayed in the same refrigerator as organic, pasteurised, milk and price listings indicated it was no different to its legal counterparts.
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/10/23/maleny-co-op-milk-breach-fine-2500/

top

FINLAND: Harmful bacteria in ground meat
22.oct.10
YLE
Arja Lento
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/10/harmful_bacteria_in_ground_meat_2081575.html
Nearly a third of ground meat sold in Helsinki's supermarkets gets poor or just mediocre marks for hygiene. Marinated meats don't fare much better, with a quarter of such samples failing to meet quality standards, according to Finland's Environmental Administration.
Between 2007 and 2009, the organisation tested some 300 meat samples from grocery shops in Helsinki. The samples included mixed minced meat of pork and beef, ground beef, ground poultry and marinated meat.
Some of the samples had traces of coliform bacteria, which is abundant in fecal matter. Yersinia enterocolitica, which causes acute gastroenteritis, was found in three of the marinated meat samples
The Environmental Administration says meat quality was poorer now than in a similar test performed eight years ago. In 2002, only two percent of samples were found to be of poor quality—now that figure is ten percent.

top

TEXAS: Health violation cited at Katy restaurant
21.oct.10
Ultimate Katy
Sharon Mooney
http://www.ultimatekaty.com/stories/218203-health-violation-cited-at-katy-restaurant
Katy's Einstein Pub restaurant was corrected for being in violation of the safe food surfaces rule. According to the Food and Drug Administration, this sort of violation could lead to the spread of food-borne illnesses. 

Harris County notes that such a violation could result from many things, such as a cutting board that cannot be easily cleaned, or having cracks or chips in dinnerware and cutlery.

 Overall, the total number of violations did not warrant a return visit from health inspectors, though inspectors did note similar infractions the previous November. The restaurant, located at 873 S. Mason, received an overall rating of 3, with zero being the best possible score and 100 being the worst.

top

US: FDA heightens focus on retail food safety
22.oct.10
FDA
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm230659.htm
10-Year Tracking Report Highlights Areas for Improvement
The Food and Drug Administration called today for stepped up efforts to improve food safety practices in retail food establishments, specifically pointing to the need for the presence of certified food safety managers to oversee safety practices. FDA pledged to work closely with state and local governments and operators of restaurants, grocery stores and other food service establishments to prevent illness from contaminated food.
FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael R. Taylor cited the retail food industry's recent progress in key areas as well as room for improvement, based on the findings released today from FDA's 10-year study tracking the retail industry's efforts to reduce five key risk factors.
"In looking at the data, it is quite clear that having a certified food protection manager on the job makes a difference," Taylor said. "Some states and localities require certified food protection managers already, and many in the retail industry employ them voluntarily as a matter of good practice. We think it should become common practice."
A component of the 10-year study, the 2009 retail food report, found that the presence of a certified food protection manager in four facility types was correlated with statistically significant higher compliance levels with food safety practices and behaviors than in facilities lacking a certified manager. For instance, compliance in full service restaurants was 70 percent with a manager, versus 58 percent without a manager. In delicatessens, compliance was 79 percent with a manager, versus 64 percent without. For seafood markets, compliance with a manager was 88 percent, versus 82 percent without. And in produce markets, compliance was 86 percent with a manager, versus 79 percent without.
In addition to calling for certified food protection managers to be common practice, Taylor said the FDA initiative will include:
Increased efforts to encourage widespread, uniform and complete adoption of the FDA Model Food Code by state, local and tribal regulatory agencies that are responsible for retail food safety standard setting and inspection. The Food Code recommends standards for management and personnel, food operations and equipment and facilities;
Increased efforts for adoption of FDA's National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards by state, local and tribal agencies that enforce the Food Code and other measures to create an enhanced local regulatory environment for retail food operations.
"The key to food safety is prevention at every step from farm to table. Food retail managers, like growers and processors, have a responsibility to reduce the risk of foodborne illness," Taylor said. "We want to build on past progress through continued collaboration with the retail industry and strengthened partnerships with state, local and tribal agencies in their standard-setting and compliance efforts."
The 10-year study looked at more than 800 retail food establishments in 1998, 2003 and 2008 and five risk factors: food from unsafe sources, poor personal hygiene, inadequate cooking, improper holding of food (time and temperature), and contaminated food surfaces and equipment.
FDA found that overall compliance improved in all nine categories of establishments. The improvements were statistically significant in elementary schools, fast food restaurants, full-service restaurants, meat and poultry markets and departments, and produce markets and departments. Improvements, although not statistically significant, were seen in hospitals, nursing homes, deli departments/stores and seafood markets and departments.
However, according to FDA, continued improvements are needed across the board, in regard to three risk factors: poor personal hygiene, improper holding of food, and contaminated food surfaces and equipment.
More than 3,000 state, local and tribal agencies have primary responsibility to regulate the more than 1 million food establishments in the United States. FDA assists the regulatory agencies and the retail industry through the Food Code, which contains prevention-oriented and science-based food safety guidance, training, program evaluation and technical assistance.
 
For more information:
FDA Trend Analysis Report (1998-2008)

top

US: Foremost Foods International, Inc. issues recall on certain Tomi dried seafood products
22.oct.10
FDA
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm230558.htm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Foremost Foods, International, Inc. of Pomona, CA, is issuing a voluntary recall on certain Tomi brand dried seafood products because they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. The products were manufactured by Kien Long Seafood Company Ltd. of Vietnam.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.
Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention.
These products were distributed in the States of California, Nevada, and Washington through Seafood City and Manila Seafood retail stores. This recall involves products sold between September 23, 2009 and October 20, 2010. The products are sold in a clear plastic package marked with the specific descriptions listed below:
UPC Description Pack Size
00000070187 TOMI DRIED BABY SQUID 40 8 oz
79598107170 TOMI DRIED GOLDEN THREADFIN BEAM 40 8 OZ
79598107166 TOMI DRIED INDIAN MACKEREL 40 8 OZ
79598107164 TOMI DRIED TREVALLY 40 8 OZ
00000079922 TOMI DRIED SHRIMP FRY 40 4 OZ
79598107175 TOMI DRIED TUYO HERRING 40 4 OZ
893509680073 DRIED ANCHOVY (KIEN LONG) 40 3.5 OZ
79598107173 TOMI DRIED ROUND SCAD 40 8 OZ
79598107179 TOMI DRIED MULLET KAPAK 40 8 OZ

top

TEXAS: Restaurant violations
21.oct.10
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
http://lubbockonline.com/restaurants/2010-10-22/restaurant-violations
Restaurant reports for the week ending October 17:
No critical violations:
• Agape Child Development Center, 1215 Slide Road
• Beck's Quality Meatland, 2323 66th St. Ste. F.
• Dickey's B-B-Q Pit, 5217 98th St.
• Dollar General, 300 N. University Ave.
• Family Dollar Store No. 2542, 5302 Ave. Q
• Family Dollar Store No. 5053, 1905 34th St.
• Family Dollar Store No. 5521, 3501 50th St.
• One Guy from Italy, 4320 50th St.
• Raider Ranch (Assisted Living), 6806 43rd St.
• Raider Ranch (Bistro), 6806 43rd St.
• Rockfish Seafood Grill (Bar), 6253 Slide Road
• South Plains Food Bank, 4612 Locust Ave.
• Terra Vista Middle School Concession, 1111 Upland Ave.
One critical violation:
• Kid's Kingdom, 5320 50th St. — inadequate dish-sanitation. Corrected on site.
• Orlando's, 2402 Ave. Q — food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• Tastee Burger, 2434 N. Clovis Road — observed possible insect contamination,. Corrected on site.
• Bill's Drive In, 1912 Clovis Road — observed sharply dented can. Corrected on site.
• Family Dollar Store No. 3011, 106 N. University Ave. — observed sharply dented can. Corrected on site.
• Family Dollar Store No. 7214, 6524 19th St. — observed sharply dented cans. Corrected on site.
• Kid Central, 3502 Slide Road — inadequate date-marking systems. Corrected on site.
• Pilot Travel Center, 602 Fourth St. — cold hold food held at inadequate temperature. Corrected on site.
Two or more critical violations:
• Crickets Drafthouse of Lubbock (Bar), 2412 Broadway — inadequate handwashing facilities. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• Lubbock Breakfast House, 7006 University Ave. — observed no thermometer in cooling unit. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• Rain Cafe, 2708 50th St. — toxic items stored improperly. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• Rockfish Seafood Grill (Food Service), 6253 Slide Road — inadequate handwashing facilities. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• El Chico, 4301 Marsha Sharp Fwy. — improper handling of ready-to-eat foods. Toxic items stored improperly. Corrected on site.
• Orlando's (Food Service), 2402 Ave. Q — inadequate date-marking systems. Observed no thermometer in cooling unit. Corrected on site.
• Dimba's Catfish Shack, 1902 34th St. — cold hold food held at inadequate temperature. Observed no thermometer in cooling unit. Corrected on site.
• Freebirds World Burrito, 4930 S. Loop 289 — hot hold food held at inadequate temperature. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• Holiday Park, 4704 Fourth St. — hot hold food held at inadequate temperature. Good hygiene practices not followed. Corrected on site.
• Alfredo's Mexican Food, 313 University Ave. — improper employee handwashing. Observed possible cross contamination. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site.
• Pilot Travel Center No. 733, 602 Fourth St. — observed possible cross contamination. Inadequate date-marking systems. Inadequate handwashing facilities. Toxic items stored improperly. Corrected on site.
• Crickets Drafthouse of Lubbock (Food Service), 2412 Broadway — hot hold food held at inadequate temperature. Good hygiene practices not followed. Observed dented can. Food contact surfaces found soiled. Corrected on site. Inadequate dish-sanitation. Observed no tip-sensitive thermometers for thin-massed foods. Corrected by 10/15.
Compiled from city of Lubbock
Environmental Inspection Services.

top

US: Western Milling LLC voluntarily recalls Universal Turkey and Kruse G.B. Turkey Grower Feeds because of possible health risk to animals
21.oct.10
FDA
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm230670.htm
edia Contact:
Alan Maltun or Sydney Rosencranz
The Abernathy MacGregor Group
(213) 630-6550
AM@abmac.com; or SPR@abmac.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Goshen, Calif. -- / PRNewswire-FirstCall/ Western Milling, LLC announced a voluntary recall of certain types of store brand noncommercial turkey feed after the company learned that the feed may contain monensin, a medication included in medicated turkey feed. The turkey feed subject to this voluntary recall was not labeled as medicated and was not formulated to contain monensin. Consumption of monensin in excessive volume by turkeys could cause injury or death.
Products subject to this recall were distributed in May and June, 2010, to 57 retail animal feed stores located in California as well as eight feed stores in Arizona and one each in Nevada and Hawaii. All retails stores have been notified. The turkey feed was sold in 50 lb. paper bags under the company's Universal and Kruse Perfection Brands. The specific lots in question were sold under the following tags:
U Turkey/Gamebird Grower Crumble, Lot 175 (PC K52105)
K G.B. Turkey Grower Crumble, Lots 126, 127 and 175 (PC K52105)
U Turkey/Gamebird Starter Krumble, Lots 126 and 175 (PC U332095)
As a precaution, the company is advising the public that the product in these bags should not be fed to poultry or other animals. Consumers who have purchased and still have any of these products with these lot codes are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers and feed stores with questions may contact the company at 1 (559) 302-1000 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, Monday through Friday.

top

CANADA: Comprehensive review of the Compliance Verification System (CVS)
20.oct.10
CFIA
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/transp/prog/compe.shtml
Background
In the summer of 2008, an outbreak of foodborne illness caused by the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat resulted in the deaths of 23 Canadians. The Government of Canada immediately took a number of actions and initiated internal reviews as well as an independent investigation.
In July 2009, the Report of the Independent Investigator into the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak (the Weatherill Report) was submitted to the Government and released to the public. The Report outlines the events that led to the outbreak, describes the Canadian food safety system and the responsibilities of industry and government, examines what went wrong, and proposes 57 recommendations to help reduce the risk of future outbreaks.
In September 2009 the Government committed to act on all of the recommendations. In the past year, the Government has made considerable progress in response to the Weatherill Report. Action is being taken to implement the recommendations in relation to three key aspects of the food safety system – reducing food safety risks, enhancing surveillance, and improving emergency response.
As per recommendation 54, the Clerk of the Privy Council gave the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) an oversight role in the coordination of actions by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in responding to the recommendations in the Report. To support the Deputy Minister in this role, the Food Safety Review Secretariat (the Secretariat) was established at AAFC.
Recommendation 7 of the Weatherill Report calls for a review by third-party experts to accurately determine the number of CFIA inspectors required to deliver the meat inspection system known as the Compliance Verification System (CVS).
In November 2009, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food asked the Secretariat to lead the coordination of efforts related to the implementation of recommendation 7 in order to ensure this work was comprehensive and independent.
Scope
The CFIA conducts inspections at federally registered meat establishments in order to verify compliance with federal laws and regulations. A key tool used during inspection is the Compliance Verification System (CVS) which was first introduced as a pilot project in 2006. It was then fully implemented in meat facilities across the country in 2008 to improve the efficiency and uniformity of the inspection approach used for the meat hygiene program.
CVS is used to verify compliance with the implementation of industry's food safety systems (i.e. Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP)), which must be developed and maintained by federally registered meat establishments. HACCP is a systematic approach to food safety that identifies all potential hazards during the production process and documents the control measures necessary for the prevention or elimination of the hazards.
CVS identifies specific inspection tasks or testing requirements that must be carried out by inspectors when conducting compliance verification. Inspectors are required to conduct daily, weekly, monthly and annual tasks, based on varying levels of risk. The system is capable of responding to changing priorities and emerging risks as the content and frequency of tasks can be adjusted as necessary. Furthermore, each CVS task is tracked electronically, enabling the systematic reporting of results. A full description of CVS is attached as Annex 1.
The Weatherill Report found that although CVS is regarded as a sound system and has broad support, improvements needed to be made in relation to its design, planning and implementation. In addition, the independent investigator noted that, due to a lack of detailed information and differing views, she was unable to determine the current level of resources as well as the resources required to conduct the CVS activities effectively.
As a result, Weatherill made the following recommendation:
"To accurately determine the demand on its inspection resources and the number of required inspectors, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should retain third-party experts to conduct a resources audit. The experts should also recommend required changes and implementation strategies. The audit should include analysis as to how many plants an inspector should be responsible for and the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors."
Approach
The Secretariat's understanding of the requirement, as set out in the Weatherill Report, was an assessment of the resource levels required to properly conduct the full range of CVS activities currently assigned to inspectors. This included the time required to conduct all CVS tasks effectively, including travel time from plant to plant.
Given this requirement, the Secretariat coordinated three complementary initiatives related to the implementation and resourcing of CVS. First, an Expert Panel was commissioned by the CFIA to assess the technical requirements of CVS. Second, the CFIA and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) conducted a joint field-level assessment of CVS in the Meat Hygiene Program. Third, an independent auditor was engaged by the Secretariat to review CFIA's calculation of the resources required by the Agency to deliver CVS. Taken together, these reviews comprise a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and implementation of CVS, as well as the resources required by the CFIA to deliver CVS in federally registered meat establishments.
Results of Comprehensive Review
I. Review of the CFIA's Compliance Verification System (CVS)
In 2009-2010, CFIA undertook two complementary reviews related to CVS, with the objective of assessing the overall effectiveness of the system and its implementation, as well as identifying any required improvements.
a. CVS Front-Line Assessment
The CFIA and PSAC conducted a joint field-level assessment of CVS in the Meat Hygiene Program. The objectives of the assessment were to:
assess the implementation of CVS at the field level;
highlight successes and best practices;
identify challenges and opportunities for improvement to the system as currently implemented; and
derive lessons learned that could be applied to the potential future implementation of CVS in other inspection programs.
The assessment was based primarily on eight consultation sessions with front-line meat inspectors and supervisors held in each of the CFIA's four geographical areas (West, Ontario, Québec and Atlantic). The consultations focused on five themes:
roles and responsibilities;
tools;
processes;
training and support; and
workload
All eight sessions were facilitated by an external third party.
One of the key conclusions of the assessment is that front-line inspection staff recognize that CVS as a tool represents an improvement over past inspection approaches. It enhances consistency and provides the level of detail required by inspectors to conduct their verification activities. Identified areas for improvement include the need to enhance inspector training, improve information management and technology, and address increased workload demands. The full report, Front-line Assessment of the Implementation of the Compliance Verification System in the Meat Hygiene Program, is attached as Appendix A.
b. Expert Panel Review
In March 2010, the CFIA commissioned an Expert Panel to assess the technical requirements of CVS. The scope of the Panel's review included an evaluation of:
the composition of CVS tasks;
their effectiveness in achieving food safety outcomes;
the frequency of CVS tasks; and
the time allocated per task.
The Expert Panel's Compliance Verification System Technical Requirements Report (see Appendix B) concludes that overall CVS is an excellent tool for providing a system to document an inspector's verification activities. The Panel also found that CVS tasks are well aligned with CFIA's food safety regulations. More flexibility in conducting task verifications was recommended to improve efficiencies and effectiveness in reacting to non-routine and emergency situations. In addition, the Panel recommended that the CFIA develop a risk-based approach to determining the frequency and time allocation of CVS tasks.
Response to Findings
The Front-line Assessment and Expert Panel reports both identified potential improvements to CVS. In response, the CFIA has implemented a number of steps to improve the effectiveness of CVS. A risk-based approach to selecting and delivering CVS tasks has been implemented. Under this approach, tasks are now associated with the level of food safety risk and the establishment's food safety program and record of performance. To enhance this risk-based approach, a new monthly CVS task has been introduced which requires inspectors to assess the overall compliance of the establishment and identify any areas of concern that may have an impact on food safety.
In response to findings related to inspector training, the CFIA has implemented an enhanced training program. This program provides new and updated technical training as well as training related to emerging trends and developments in food safety.
The Independent Investigator also recommended that further analysis should be completed with respect to the appropriateness of rotation of inspectors. In response, the CFIA is implementing a pilot project to assess the advantages, challenges, and costs of rotating inspectors among establishments. The results of this pilot project will be assessed to determine whether this approach could be applied on a broader scale.
II. Review of Resource Requirements to Deliver CVS
The Secretariat engaged the firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to provide a third-party review of the CFIA's calculation of the resources required by the Agency to deliver CVS in federally registered meat establishments. PwC assessed the Agency's data, assumptions, processes, methodology and resulting calculation using a variety of tools and techniques.
The calculation was based on data collected in 2009-2010. In addition to considering the direct time required to undertake the inspection tasks, the calculation factored in sick leave, administration time, and training and travel time. To calculate travel time, the CFIA asked meat inspectors who perform CVS tasks to report their daily travel time over a one week period.
The conclusion of the independent auditor was that the equivalent of 260 full-time employees (inspectors) are required to deliver all CVS tasks. The reference made to "the equivalent of 260 full-time inspectors" is meant to indicate the demand on CFIA's meat inspection resources or the estimated amount of work time needed to deliver all CVS tasks. See Appendix C for PwC's report, Result of the Independent Review of CFIA's Calculation of the Number of Inspectors Required to Deliver CVS.
It should be noted that, by way of comparison, last year (2009-2010) the CFIA applied the equivalent of 176 full-time employees to the delivery of CVS tasks. Since that time, enhanced Listeria sampling and detection procedures were introduced. This has led to a more rigorous and robust CVS regime and has meant the addition of new inspection tasks as well as an increase in the frequency of inspections.
The difference between the 2009-2010 and the 2010-2011 numbers is being made up through federal funding provided in 2009 to address new Listeria requirements and in Budget 2010 to hire additional inspectors in registered meat processing establishments. In total, 170 inspectors are being hired through this funding. The CFIA expects that these additional investments will address the increased demand associated with the delivery of CVS tasks.
Conclusion
The Weatherill Report called for a "resources audit" related to CVS. The report identified a need to determine the resource levels required to properly conduct the full range of CVS activities currently assigned to inspectors. In response, the government undertook three separate, yet complementary, studies which have provided important information concerning the design and implementation of CVS.
These studies confirm that, overall, the CVS is an excellent tool and is an important improvement to previous inspection systems. The system enhances the consistency and efficiency of program delivery, improves the reporting of inspection results, and supports more objective decision making. Most importantly, CVS is capable of adapting to the changing priorities and emerging risks of an evolving food system.
In addition, these studies taken together comprise a comprehensive review of CVS that has identified opportunities for improvement. The Agency has responded by developing a risk-based approach to the frequency of task assignment, implementing a new training program, and hiring additional inspectors. Furthermore, the CFIA has better aligned resources so that inspector workloads are appropriately managed. The Agency will continue to review and adjust CVS to ensure that the oversight system for food safety in meat establishments remains modern, efficient, and effective.
Annex 1
Description of the Compliance Verification System
In both Canada and the United States, a number of technological, scientific and quality management developments have occurred in the past quarter century that have had a major impact on the ability of the meat inspection services to react to the forces imposed upon them.
Three of the most important developments are:
Inexpensive informatics technology and the increasing improvement in electronic communications have made the development, implementation and management of complex information systems possible in real time.
Increasing sophistication of the science of risk analysis and statistical process control procedures and their adaptation to food safety quality control programs.
Emphasis on preventative quality control procedures, rather than end product testing, as a means of controlling quality in the production process and generating economic benefits.
The recognition of these developments by Canada and its trading partners and their incorporation into the international standards such as Codex Alimentarius, that govern the production and inspection of food products, have provided an environment that resulted in the development of meat inspection programs such as the Compliance Verification System (CVS) in Canada and the Performance Based Inspection System in the US.
The CVS includes verification tasks that are used by CFIA inspection staff to assess compliance with regulatory requirements. Each verification task includes detailed procedures for inspectors to follow when conducting verifications.
Compliance is normally to be achieved through a cooperative approach between the operator and the inspection staff. This approach generally involves the operator correcting instances of non-compliance through the development and implementation of written action plans. When this cooperative approach is not successful, or when the operator is unwilling or unable to correct instances of non-compliance, the CFIA pursues the enforcement options outlined in the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures.
Organization, Frequencies, Tasks and Establishment Profiles
Presently, CVS is organized into five sections of verification tasks, as described in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Organization of Verification Tasks
Section Sub-Sections
1. Food Safety 1. Critical Controls Points
2. Prerequisite Programs
3. Slaughter
4. Food Safety Current Issues
2. Non Food Safety 1. Labelling Practices
2. CFIA Stations and Facilities
3. Non Food Safety Current Issues
3. Export 1. Export USA
2. Export Other than USA
3. Foreign Country Follow-up Requirements
4. Export Current Issues
4. HACCP System Design and Reassessment 1. HACCP System Design and Reassessment
2. HACCP System Design Current Issues
5. Animal Welfare and Animal Health 1. Animal Welfare and Animal Health
2. Animal Welfare and Animal Health Current Issues
Each verification task is assigned a minimum national frequency. These frequencies are determined by considering the:
Impact on food safety
FSEP Manual guidelines
Number of Critical Control Points at the establishment
Regulatory requirements
Export requirements
State of compliance of the industry as a whole
Appendices:
A. Front-line Assessment of the Implementation of the Compliance Verification System in the Meat Hygiene Program (CFIA and PSAC)
B. Compliance Verification System (CVS) Technical Requirements Report (Expert Panel)
C. Result of the Independent Review of CFIA's Calculation of the Number of Inspectors Required to Deliver CVS (PwC)

top

bites is produced by Dr. Douglas Powell and food safety friends at Kansas State University. For further information, please contact dpowell@ksu.edu or check out bites.ksu.edu.

TO SUBSCRIBE to the listserv version of bites, send mail to:
(subscription is free)
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe bites-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe bites-L Doug Powell

TO UNSUBSCRIBE from the listserv version of bites, send mail to:
listserv@listserv.ksu.edu
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type: signoff bites-L

archived at http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet-archives.htm and bites.ksu.edu