Fresh Produce Discussion Blog: Oct 22, 2010

Friday, October 22, 2010

Fw: (Fresh Produce) ACTION: Notice. Comment Request; Guide To Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Big Apple <Ernestoman@yahoo.com>
Sender: "freshproduce@googlegroups.com" <freshproduce@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:18:06
To: Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group<freshproduce@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: "freshproduce@googlegroups.com" <freshproduce@googlegroups.com>
Subject: (Fresh Produce) ACTION: Notice. Comment Request; Guide To Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables

[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 65491-65494]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-66]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0411]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guide To Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office
of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0609.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading
of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard
Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Guide To Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits
and
Vegetables--(OMB Control Number 0910-0609)--Extension

Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables that
have
been processed by peeling, slicing, chopping, shredding, coring,
trimming, or mashing, with or without washing or other treatment,
prior
to being packaged for consumption. The methods by which produce is
grown, harvested, and processed may contribute to its contamination
with pathogens and, consequently, the role of the produce in
transmitting foodborne illness. Factors such as the high degree of
handling and mixing of the product, the release of cellular fluids
during cutting or mashing, the high moisture content of the product,
the absence of a step lethal

[[Page 65492]]

to pathogens, and the potential for temperature abuse in the
processing, storage, transport, and retail display all enhance the
potential for pathogens to survive and grow in fresh-cut produce.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) prohibits the
distribution of adulterated food in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331
and 342). In response to the increased consumption of fresh-cut
fruits
and vegetables and the potential for foodborne illness associated
with
these products, FDA recognizes the need for guidance specific to the
processing of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. The guidance document
entitled ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-
cut
Fruits and Vegetables,'' which is available at: http://www.fda.gov/
FoodGuidances, provides FDA's recommendations to fresh-cut produce
processors about how to avoid contamination of their product with
pathogens. The guidance is in addition to the current good
manufacturing practices (cGMPs) provided in part 110 of FDA's
regulations (21 CFR part 110). The guidance is intended to assist
fresh-cut produce processors in minimizing microbial food safety
hazards common to the processing of most fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables sold to consumers and retail establishments in a ready-to-
eat form. Accordingly, FDA encourages fresh-cut produce processors to
adopt the general recommendations in the guidance and to tailor
practices to their individual operations.
The guidance provides information and recommended procedures
designed to help fresh-cut produce processors minimize microbial food
safety hazards. The recommended procedures contained in the guidance
are voluntary. Both FDA and fresh-cut produce processors will use and
benefit from the information collected.
Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to
develop and implement both a written Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) plan and a Sanitary Standard Operation Procedures (SSOPs)
plan.
SOPs and SSOPs are important components to properly implemented and
monitored cGMPs that are required for processed food operations under
part 110. Other recommended programs that require documentation and
recordkeeping are recall and traceback programs. In the event of a
food
safety concern, processors who adopt these recommended programs will
be
prepared to recall products from the market place or be able to trace
back fresh produce, which might be implicated in a foodborne illness
outbreak, to its source. Fresh-cut produce processors are also asked
to
consider the application of Hazards Analysis and Critical Control
Point
(HACCP) principles or comparable preventive control programs to the
processing of fruits and vegetables. FDA, other Federal and State
food
agencies, industry, and food establishments have found such
preventive
control programs, when properly designed and maintained by the
establishment's personnel, to be valuable in managing the safety of
food products.
FDA's fresh-cut guidance represents the agency's recommendations
to
industry based on the current state of science. Following the
recommendations set forth in the fresh-cut guidance is the choice of
each individual fresh-cut operation, plant, or processor. FDA
estimates
the burden of the guidance on industry by assuming that those in the
fresh-cut industry who do not currently follow the recommendations
put
forth in the guidance will find it of value to do so. Therefore, the
estimates of the burden associated with the issuance of the guidance
represent the upper bound estimate of burden; the burden if every
fresh-cut plant, processor, or operation that does not follow the
recommendations of the guidance should choose to do so.
In the Federal Register of August 11, 2010 (75 FR 48692), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received .
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping
Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Activity No. of frequency per
Total annual Hours per Total hours
recordkeepers recordkeeping
records record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOP and SSOP: Maintenance....... 122
3,315 404,430 0.067 27,097
Traceback development........... 10
1 10 20 200
Traceback maintenance........... 290
1 290 40 11,600
Preventive control program 10
1 10 100 1,000
comparable to a HACCP system:
System development.............
Preventive control program 145
510 73,950 0.067 4,955
comparable to a HACCP system:
System implementation..........
Preventive control program 145
4 580 4 2,320
comparable to a HACCP system:
Implementation review..........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual burden
hours......... .............. .............. .............. ..............
47,172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs
associated with this collection of
information.

Industry Profile

Estimates of the paperwork burden to the fresh-cut industry are
based on information received from a fresh-cut processor who has
developed and maintained these programs and information from a fresh-
cut produce industry trade association. Because of the small number
of
fresh-cut processors, the agency is able to extrapolate data from
industry programs to calculate the total estimated upper bound
burdens
(see table 1 of this document).
The burden to industry of developing and maintaining the
activities
recommended in FDA's fresh-cut guidance will vary considerably among
fresh-cut processors, depending on the type and number of products
involved, the sophistication of the equipment or instruments (e.g.,
those that automatically monitor and record food safety controls),
and
the type of controls monitored under any individual preventive
control
program, such as critical control points (CCPs) monitored under a
HACCP
program.
In 2007, FDA estimated that there were 250 fresh-cut plants in
operation in the United States, and that approximately 10 new firms
enter the fresh-cut industry each year (72 FR

[[Page 65493]]

11364, at 11366, March 13, 2007). Using these figures, we estimate
that
in 2010 there are 280 fresh-cut plants in operation and that
approximately 10 new firms will enter the fresh-cut industry each
year,
over the next 3 years. Many of the existing firms in the fresh-cut
industry already make use of cGMP-related, recall, HACCP, and other
activities. FDA estimates that the burden of the fresh-cut guidance
will fall on both existing and new firms entering the industry who
may
follow the recommendations in the guidance.

SOPs and SSOPs

Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to
develop and implement both a written SOPs plan and a written SSOPs
plan. SOPs describe in writing the performance of the day-to-day
operations of a processing plant. Examples of activities that would
fall under SOPs would be developing written specifications for
agricultural inputs, ingredients, and packaging materials; production
steps for the processing and packaging operations; instructions for
packaging and storage activities; and procedures for equipment
maintenance, calibration, and replacement and facility maintenance
and
upkeep; and maintaining SOP records on product processing and
distribution activities.
SSOPs provide written instructions or procedures for sanitary
practices developed for each specific sanitation activity in and
around
the facility. Sanitation activities include procedures for cleaning
equipment, food-contact surfaces, and plant facilities; chemical use
and storage; cleaning equipment maintenance, use, and storage; pest
control; and maintaining SSOP records for the activities. From
communication with the fresh-cut industry, we know that existing
fresh-
cut processors already have developed SOPs and SSOPs. We therefore
consider the development of SOPs and SSOPs to be ``usual and
customary'' for manufacturers and processors in the fresh-cut
industry
(see 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). Thus, we do not calculate this burden for
existing firms or new firms entering this industry.
FDA recommends that facilities not only develop but also maintain
SOPs and SSOPs. Implementation and maintenance of SOPs and SSOPs
include maintaining daily records for each of the firm's operational
days for the following activities: Inspection of incoming
ingredients,
such as the fresh produce and packaging material; facility and
production sanitation inspections; equipment maintenance, sanitation,
and visual safety inspections; equipment calibration, e.g., checking
pH
meters; facility and premises pest control audits; temperature
controls
during processing and in storage areas; and audits of ingredients,
food
contact surfaces, and equipment for microbiological contamination. Of
the 280 fresh-cut processors, we estimate that well over half have
SOP
and SSOP maintenance programs in place. Therefore, for purposes of
estimating the annual recordkeeping burden for SOP and SSOP
maintenance
programs, the agency assumed that 40 percent of the existing
processors, or 112 firms, and the 10 new firms do not have SOP and
SSOP
maintenance programs in place. FDA estimates the recordkeeping burden
for SOP and SSOP maintenance programs by assuming that these 122
firms
will choose to implement such a maintenance strategy as a result of
the
recommendations in the fresh-cut guidance document.
A typical fresh-cut processing plant operates about 255 days per
year. For an 8-hour shift, assuming the ingredients are received
twice
during that time, under the recommendations in the guidance, there
would be about 13 records kept (2 for inspecting incoming
ingredients;
2 for inspecting the facility and production areas once every 4
hours;
3 records for equipment (maintenance, sanitation, and visual
inspections for defects); 1 for calibrating equipment; 2 temperature
recording audits (1 time for each of the 2 processing runs); and 3
microbiological audits (ingredients, food contact surfaces, and
equipment)). Therefore, the annual frequency of recordkeeping for
SOPs
and SSOPs is calculated to be 3,315 times (255 x 13) per year per
firm;
122 firms will be performing these activities to generate a total
404,430 records (3,315 x 122) annually, assuming all firms choose to
follow the recommendations on keeping records.
The total time to record observations for SOP and SSOP
maintenance
is estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067 hours per record, and the
number of records maintained is 404,430. Therefore, the total annual
burden in hours for 122 processors to maintain their SOP and SSOP
records is approximately 27,097 hours (404,430 x 0.067). The
maintenance burden for these 122 firms, along with the annual
maintenance burden of audits or testing, is estimated in row 1 of
table
1 of this document. Again, these figures assume that all firms choose
to follow the recommendations on recording observations.

Recall and Traceback

We recommend that fresh-cut processors establish and maintain
written traceback procedures to respond to food safety hazard
problems
when they arise and establish and maintain a written contingency plan
for use in initiating and effecting a recall. In order to facilitate
tracebacks and recalls, we recommend that processors establish a
program that documents and tracks fresh-cut products back to the
source
of their raw ingredients, and keep records of product identity and
specifications, the product in inventory, and where, when, to whom,
and
how much of the product is shipped.
Traceback programs are used for those times when a food safety
problem has been identified or a product has been implicated in a
foodborne illness outbreak. The burden to develop a traceback program
is a one-time activity estimated to take approximately 20 hours. In
2007, we previously estimated that firms in the industry would choose
to begin a traceback program after the guidance was made available
and
estimated that the 250 existing fresh-cut firms and the 10 new
businesses expected to enter the industry annually from 2007 to 2010
would spend 5,200 hours (250 x 20) on this activity. Accordingly, we
only need to estimate the burden of this one-time activity on the 10
new businesses expected to enter the industry annually in the next 3
years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will spend 20 hours each
preparing a traceback program, for a total of 200 hours (10 x 20).
The
burden estimate of developing a traceback program is shown in row 2
of
table 1 of this document.
Traceback program adjustments or revisions may, or may not, be
needed annually. Firms may test their traceback programs yearly to
see
if adjustments are needed to maintain traceback capabilities.
Evaluating and updating traceback programs is estimated to take 40
hours to complete. The annual burden of maintaining a traceback
program
is estimated for the 280 existing firms in the industry plus the 10
firms new to the industry that may decide to implement this type of
program. Assuming that each firm completes this exercise once a year,
the total maintenance burden of traceback programs is 11,600 hours
yearly (290 x 40). This burden estimate is shown in row 3 of table 1
of
this document.
The fresh-cut guidance refers to previously approved collections
of
information found in FDA regulations. The recommendations in this
document regarding establishing and maintaining

[[Page 65494]]

a recall plan, as provided in 21 CFR 7.59, have been approved under
OMB
control number 0910-0249. Therefore, FDA is not calculating a new
paperwork burden for recall plans.

Preventative Control Program

When properly designed and maintained by the establishment's
personnel, a preventive control program is a valuable program for
managing the safety of food products. A common preventive control
program used by the fresh-cut industry is a HACCP system. A HACCP
system allows managers to assess the inherent risks and identify
hazards attributable to a product or a process, and then determine
the
necessary steps to control the hazards. Monitoring and verification
steps, which include recordkeeping, are included in the HACCP system
to
ensure that potential risks are controlled. We use HACCP as an
example
of a preventive control program that a firm may choose based on the
recommendations in the guidance to estimate the burden of developing,
implementing, and reviewing a preventive control program.
FDA estimated the paperwork burden of developing and implementing
a
HACCP plan based on a plan with two CCPs. The number of CCPs may vary
depending on how the processor chooses to identify the CCPs for a
particular operation. Developing a HACCP plan is a one-time activity
that is estimated to take 100 hours based on a trained HACCP team
working on the plan full time. The HACCP team identifies the CCPs and
measures needed to control them, and then identifies the approach
needed to verify the effectiveness of the controls. During this plan
development period, the firm chooses the records to be kept and
information and observations to be recorded. This is a one-time
process
during the first year.
In 2007, we previously estimated that, of the estimated 250 fresh-
cut processors, approximately 50 percent of the firms already have
HACCP plans in place. We therefore assumed that the remaining fresh-
cut
processors (125 existing firms plus the 10 new firms), would
voluntarily develop a HACCP plan, and estimated that 135 processors
would spend 13,500 hours (135 x 100) to develop their individual
HACCP
plans. Accordingly, we only need to estimate the burden of this one-
time activity on the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry
annually in the next 3 years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will
spend 100 hours each to develop their individual HACCP plans, for a
total of 1,000 hours (10 x 100). This burden estimate is shown in row
4
of table 1 of this document.
After the HACCP plan is developed, the frequency for
recordkeeping
for implementing or maintaining daily records is estimated to be 510
records per year. (This is based on a firm choosing to maintain daily
records for 2 CCPs for one 8-hour shift per day for each of the
estimated 255 operational days per year.) The total time to record
observations for the CCPs was estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067
hours per record. Therefore, the total annual records kept by 145
firms
(the 135 firms plus the 10 new businesses expected to enter the
industry) is 73,950 (510 x 145), and the total hours required are
4,955
(73,950 records x 0.067 hours per record = 4,954.65, rounded to
4,955).
This annual burden is shown in row 5 of table 1 of this document.
After the HACCP plan has been developed and implemented, we
recommend that the plan is reviewed regularly to ensure that it is
working properly. Fresh-cut processors are estimated to review their
HACCP plans four times per year (once per quarter). Assuming that it
takes each of the 145 firms 4 hours per review each quarter, the
total
burden of this activity, for firms that choose to review their plans
annually, is 2,320 (145 x 4 x 4) hours per year. This annual burden
is
shown in row 6 of table 1 of this document.

Dated: October 18, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26829 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to freshproduce@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to freshproduce+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/freshproduce?hl=en.

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

Fw: CFSAN Constituent Update October 22, 2010

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: "U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)" <fda@service.govdelivery.com>

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:39:19 -0500

To: Tom Karst<TKarst@vancepublishing.com>

Subject: CFSAN Constituent Update October 22, 2010

* U.S. Food and Drug Administration *
* Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition *

CONSTITUENT UPDATE

Constituent Updates are also available on the web at http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/default.htm.

FDA Heightens Focus on Retail Food Safety

October 22, 2010

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 FDA 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) http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactor
Reduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm223293.htm

2009 FDA Report http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactor
Reduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm224321.htm

FDA Food Code
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/FoodCode2009/default.htm

FDA National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/ProgramStandards/ucm180269.htm

Ensuring Food Safety: The Cooperative Retail Food Program
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm223441.htm

Ensuring Food Safety: The Cooperative Retail Food Program (photo slideshow)
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm230343.htm

Manage your FDA Subscriptions:

Update your preferences or unsubscribe
Questions about this service? support@govdelivery.com
Other inquiries? webmail@oc.fda.gov

U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) · 10903 New Hampshire Ave · Silver Spring, MD 20993 · 800-439-1420

Fw: Lincoln Statement on Release of Albert Pike Flood Report

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: "Becker, Ben (Agriculture)" <Ben_Becker@agriculture.senate.gov>

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:37:04 -0500

Subject: Lincoln Statement on Release of Albert Pike Flood Report

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 22, 2010

Contact: Courtney Rowe, Ben Becker (202) 224-2035

Lincoln Statement on Release of Albert Pike Flood Report

Washington – U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, today issued the below statement, following the release of a Forest Service report prompted by the June 11 flood at Albert Pike. The "Recreation Visitor Safety Report" provides an outline of the events which took place at Albert Pike, identifies the results of regional assessments of visitor safety which were ordered by the Chief immediately after the flood, and describes several national actions either already underway or planned to enhance visitor safety at developed campgrounds.

"I'm pleased to see that the Forest Service and USDA have taken the time to thoroughly review the events leading up the tragic flood which killed 20 people at Camp Albert Pike on June 11^th of this year. I'm concerned that USDA's review showed that there were several steps which could have been taken to reduce the risks those campers faced. I plan on introducing legislation when Congress returns to require the Forest Service to keep the Congress updated on the steps they are taking to improve visitor safety, not just at Camp Albert Pike, but at all developed recreation sites across the country.

I'm also happy to hear that the agency is moving forward to evaluate installing an early warning system at Albert Pike, and taking steps to provide better NOAA Weather Radio Coverage there. Further, they plan on providing NOAA Weather Radios to all Forest Service Campground Hosts across the country.

I look forward to working with USDA, the National Weather Service, and all other agencies involved to ensure that we do everything in our power to prevent a recurrence of a tragedy such as this one."

-30-

Fw: USDA Provides Disaster Assistance to Producers of Rice, UplandCotton, Soybeans and Sweet Potatoes

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: USDA Office of Communications <oc.news@usda.gov>

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:59:51 -0500

To: Tom Karst<TKarst@vancepublishing.com>

Subject: USDA Provides Disaster Assistance to Producers of Rice, Upland Cotton, Soybeans and Sweet Potatoes

Release No. 0551.10

Contact:
Isabel Benemelis
(202) 720-7809

USDA Provides Disaster Assistance to Producers of Rice, Upland Cotton, Soybeans and Sweet Potatoes

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2010 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that starting today up to $550 million in disaster assistance will be issued to producers of rice, upland cotton, soybeans and sweet potatoes that suffered losses because of excessive moisture or related conditions in 2009. This assistance will be issued by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) through the Crop Assistance Program (CAP).

"Producers of these crops suffered quality and quantity losses caused by excess moisture in 2009," Vilsack said. "They continue to feel the effects of those crop losses and this program will provide timely assistance."

Payments will be made available to producers of eligible crops that received Secretarial disaster designations due to excessive moisture or related conditions in 2009. A list of eligible disaster counties for CAP is located at http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov. Producers of eligible crops on farms in disaster counties who certify to a 5 percent or greater crop loss in 2009 due to excessive moisture or related conditions will receive a payment based on a predetermined payment rate times the planted acres of the crop. Per acre payment rates will be prorated by FSA in order to keep payments within available funds for the program. Producers will initially receive 75 percent or their CAP payment and once sign up i s complete they will receive up to an additional 25 percent. The predetermined payment rates for the eligible crops are:

Long grain rice – $31.93 per acre;
Medium or short grain rice – $52.46 per acre;
Upland Cotton – $17.70 per acre;
Soybeans – $15.62 per acre;
Sweet potatoes – $155.41 per acre.

The general eligibility provisions, payment limits and adjusted gross income limits that apply to FSA programs apply to CAP. No person or legal entity (excluding a joint venture or general partnership), may receive, directly or indirectly, more than $100,000 in CAP benefits. Additionally, CAP payments will be treated as 2009 revenue under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program.

CAP is funded through Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of Aug. 24, 1935, which allows the Secretary to use funds to reestablish the purchasing power of farmers, ranchers and producers. For additional background on CAP, visit http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov.

For more information about USDA Farm Service Agency disaster assistance programs, visit a local FSA county office or http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

This message was sent from USDA Office of Communications to TKarst@vancepublishing.com;. It was sent from: OC News, USDA Office of Communications 1400 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1300. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Manage your subscription

Fw: FDA Heightens Focus on Retail Food Safety

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: CFSAN Trade Press Office <TradePress@cfsan.fda.gov>

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:56:40 -0500

To: CFSAN Trade Press Office<TradePress@cfsan.fda.gov>

Subject: FDA Heightens Focus on Retail Food Safety

FDA NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: Oct. 22, 2010
Media Inquiries: Pat El-Hinnawy, 301-796-4763, patricia.el-hinnawy@fda.hhs.gov
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

FDA Heightens Focus on Retail Food Safety

10-Year Tracking Report Highlights Areas for Improvement

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.

For more information:

FDA Trend Analysis Report (1998-2008) http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm223293.htm

2009 FDA Report http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm224321.htm

Backgrounder: FDA Retail Food Risk Factor Study

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm230313.htm

Backgrounder: FDA Retail Food Safety Initiative

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessandRiskFactorReduction/RetailFoodRiskFactorStudies/ucm230315.htm

FDA Food Code

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/FoodCode2009/default.htm

FDA National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/ProgramStandards/ucm180269.htm

Ensuring Food Safety: The Cooperative Retail Food Program
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm223441.htm

Ensuring Food Safety: The Cooperative Retail Food Program (photo slideshow)
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm230343.htm

Sebastian Cianci
Public Affairs Specialist
Trade Press Liaison
(301) 436-2291
tradepress@fda.hhs.gov

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

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

From: Doug Powell <dpowell@KSU.EDU>

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

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:10:50 -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

bites Oct. 22/10

Lousy food safety auditors put public and brands at risk

Lamb on a shovel in a fire pit: finger test insufficient

How safe is chicken tartare; how not to ask a question

WISCONSIN: Official: Source of illnesses at restaurant might never be found

SINGAPORE: Import of eggs, broiler chickens and ducks from Malaysia remains stable

CALIFORNIA: Rabid bat discovered in south Orange County

Prevalence of Listeria spp. and antibiotic susceptibility of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from raw chicken and ready-to-eat chicken products in Jordan

Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis typing of human and retail foodstuff Campylobacters: an Irish perspective

how to subscribe

Lousy food safety auditors put public and brands at risk
22.oct.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144714/10/10/22/lousy-food-safety-auditors-put-public-and-brands-risk
"The voluntary quality control system widely used in the nation's $1 trillion domestic food industry is rife with conflicts of interest, inexperienced auditors and cursory inspections that produce inflated ratings, according to food retail executives and other industry experts."
I've been saying that for a long time, but this is the Washington Post version, published this morning. I especially like the pictures of the Montgomery Burns Awards for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence, courtesy of AIB, the Manhattan, Kansas-based audiot that gave stellar rating to PCA and Wright Eggs just prior to terrible food safety outbreaks and revelations of awful prouction conditions (see below).
"The system has developed primarily because large chain stores and food producers, such as Kellogg's, want assurances about the products they place on their shelves and the ingredients they use in making food. To get that, they often require that their suppliers undergo regular inspections by independent auditors. This all takes place outside any government involvement and without any signals - stamps of approval, for instance - to consumers." (That's four-year-old Zoe Warren, right, of Bethesda, who was hospitalized in 2007 after contracting salmonella poisoning after eating a chicken pot pie. The photo is by Susan Biddle for the Washington Post.)
The third-party food safety audit scheme that processors and retailers insisted upon is, in many cases, no better than a financial Ponzi scheme. The vast number of facilities and suppliers means audits are required, but people have been replaced by paper.
"In fact, most foodmakers, even those with problems, sail through their inspections, said Mansour Samadpour, who owns a food-testing firm that does not perform audits. "I have not seen a single company that has had an outbreak or recall that didn't have a series of audits with really high scores."
Third-party food audits, like restaurant inspection, are a snapshot in time. Given the international sourcing of ingredients, audits are a requirement, but so is internal food safety intelligence to make sense of audits that are useful and audits that are chicken poop.
"Industry experts say some "third-party" inspections can be rigorous. Those that audit using internationally recognized private benchmarks "are much more thorough," said Robert Brackett, former senior vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "But they're less likely to be used because they are much more expensive."
Audits, inspections, training and systems are no substitute for developing a strong food safety culture, farm-to-fork, and marketing food safety directly to consumers rather than the local/natural/organic hucksterism is a way to further reinforce the food safety culture.
Will Daniels, who oversees food safety for Earthbound Farm, the folks who brought E. coli O157:H7 in bagged spinach in 2006 that sickened 199 and killed four, said, Earthbound regularly received top ratings in third-party audits, including one exactly a month before the tainted spinach was processed, adding,
"No one should rely on third-party audits to insure food safety."
"… if the incentive is to pass with flying colors, it creates a disincentive to air your dirty laundry and get dinged and lose a customer over it."
"After the E. coli outbreak, Earthbound put in place an aggressive testing and safety program that includes outside audits but also requires Earthbound's own inspectors to show up unannounced to check suppliers. The company tests its greens for pathogens when they arrive from farms and again when they are packaged."
Too bad Earthbound didn't figure all this out after the 28 other outbreaks involving leafy greens prior to the deadly 2006 outbreak.
Cost is another factor.
"Food companies often choose the cheapest auditors to minimize the added expense of inspections, which range from about $1,000 to more than $25,000.
The foodmakers can prepare for audits because they often know when inspectors will show up.
"And auditors have a range of experience and qualifications, from recent college graduates to retired food industry veterans. They sometimes walk through a plant, ticking off a checklist to produce a score, Samadpour said. Basic inspections do not typically include microbial sampling for bacteria.
"In a written response to questions, Brian Soddy, AIB's vice president of marketing and sales, said company audits are intended to give food manufacturers "guidance and education for improvement."
"Producers have the ultimate responsibility, he said, adding that the audits are voluntary and not intended to replace any FDA regulatory inspections.
AIB said last week that it is reevaluating its "superior" and "excellent" rating systems because they "have led to confusion in the wake of recent incidents," Soddy wrote.
"Some retailers include inspections as just one piece of their safety programs.
Costco, for example, has its own inspectors but also requires its estimated 4,000 food vendors to have their products inspected according to a detailed 10-page list of criteria. Private auditors must X-ray all products for "sticks and stones, bones in seafood - anything you can think of that might be in hot dogs, baked goods, outside of produce," said Craig Wilson, Costco's assistant vice president for food safety and quality assurance.
"Costco maintains an approved list of about nine audit firms. The list does not include AIB.
"Wal-Mart requires suppliers of private-label food products sold in its stores and Sam's Club to be audited using private internationally recognized standards.
In addition to conducting its own product testing, Giant Food requires its vendors to be audited from a list of about a dozen approved firms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102106900.html
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/141373/10/03/17/are-third-party-food-safety-auditors-effective-financial-ratings-agencies
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/144337/10/09/30/third-party-food-safety-audits-fall-under-intense-scrutiny
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/140111/09/04/09/third-party-audits-are-no-replacement-skilled-staff-food-safety-culture-bite-me
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/144252/10/09/23/food-safety-auditors-can-suck-salmonella-egg-producer-got-ok-same-auditor-oked-

top

Lamb on a shovel in a fire pit: finger test insufficient
22.oct.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://www.barfblog.com/blog/144716/10/10/22/lamb-shovel-fire-pit-finger-test-insufficient
Once the kid goes to sleep, Amy and I usually adjourn to the bedroom, no matter how early, and chill.
I go through my ritual of flipping through bad TV while Amy does fascinating farm animal things on Facebook.
Last night, my flipping took me to the Primal Grill With Steven Raichlen, where the dude was cooking lamb chops on a shovel in a fire pit.
Apparently, by holding the shovel over the open wood fire, the smoke curls up over the shovel to add a robust flavor to the chops.
This guy's got way too much time on his hands.
To check if the lamb was properly cooked, he pushed his finger into a chop, proclaimed it "spongy" and therefore done.
However you want to cook meat – with a shovel, a pick-axe, a V-8 engine -- use a tip-sensitive digital thermometer to ensure a safe food temperature.
http://www.opb.org/television/programs/primal-grill-with-steven-raichlen/

top

How safe is chicken tartare; how not to ask a question
22.oct.10
barfblog
Doug Powell
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/144717/10/10/22/how-safe-chicken-tartare-how-not-ask-question
If you like steak tartare, you'll love chicken tartare, a salmonella-laden crap-fest of raw chicken and egg.
Jonathan Kauffman of San Francisco Weekly writes readers were disgusted after his review of (raw) chicken tartare served at Ippuku, a Japanese restaurant in Berkeley.
Proving once again that most chefs know shit about food safety, chef Christian Geideman said that "since salmonella only lives in the digestive tracts of chickens, and since Geideman dipped strips of raw chicken breast meat in boiling water for 30 seconds before cutting it up and seasoning it, he'd eliminated the threat of salmonella contamination."
Good thing Kauffman finally got in touch with friend of the barfblog, Harshavardhan Thippareddi, an associate professor of food science at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (left, sorta as shown).
Dr. Thippareddi – also known as Reddi – told Kaufmann that, no, a 30-second plunge in boiling water would do little to kill pathogens.
When asked how chicken tartare would compare to steak tartare, Reddi said,
"Actually, the risk is lower in beef. The normal percentage of beef carcasses contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 is 0.1 to 0.3 percent. In poultry, the prevalence of salmonella is higher — the legal limit for poultry processors is that less than 20 percent of the birds may be contaminated. In some processors, they may have lower rates — like 5 or 7 percent."
Kauffman said,
"But those rates are probably for confined chickens. These chickens are pasture raised, and probably organic. Does that make a difference?"
Reddi said,
"We'd like to think it does, but sadly, it doesn't."
Science in a San Fran blog. Awesome.
Reddi added in a subsequent e-mail to the author,
"We all take risks in life. I suppose this is one of those 'acceptable' risks for some of us. However, I don't think you will ever find me eating steak tartare or sushi (knowing the risks)."
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/foodie/2010/10/how_safe_is_chicken_tartare_a.php

top

WISCONSIN: Official: Source of illnesses at restaurant might never be found
22.oct.10
Baraboo News Republic
Jeremiah Tucker
http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsrepublic/news/local/article_719199c6-dd83-11df-9ca3-001cc4c03286.html
MERRIMAC -- A probe into the source of what investigators believe was an outbreak of norovirus at the Hillcrest on Lake Wisconsin restaurant earlier this month is ongoing, but one official said it's possible the source of the virus may never be discovered.
Jim Kaplanek, chief of food safety for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, said norovirus spreads so quickly that it often is difficult to determine a source. It's possible that a member of the restaurant staff spread the illness, but it also could have originated with a patron that brought it into the establishment.
"Many times all we have is a best guess, there's no conclusive evidence," Kaplanek said, adding it's difficult to determine where food-borne illnesses start. "In most cases, with food-borne illness, very rarely do you find a link between the people and the food."
Kaplanek said no food is being tested as part of the investigation, but the state is testing stool samples.
"Between 20 and 25 people were affected (by the illness) that we're aware of, and we have five people tested," said Cynthia Bodendein, a Sauk County health officer.

top

SINGAPORE: Import of eggs, broiler chickens and ducks from Malaysia remains stable
22.oct.10
Channel NewsAsia
Mustafa Shafawi
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1088720/1/.html
SINGAPORE -- The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) on Friday said that Newcastle Disease, which is reportedly affecting a few poultry farms in Malaysia exporting eggs to Singapore, does not pose a risk to food safety.
In a statement, the authority said it only affects animal health and farm production.
The disease is a contagious viral disease of birds and is endemic in the Southeast Asia region.
Affected birds may show respiratory and nervous symptoms and in severe cases, sudden death.
AVA said it has worked closely with the Department of Veterinary Services Malaysia (DVS) to assess the disease situation, including making visits to affected farms.
The AVA inspection teams have completed visits to affected farms.

top

CALIFORNIA: Rabid bat discovered in south Orange County
21.oct.10
Los Angeles Times
Dan Weikel
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/rabid-bat-orange-county-.html
Orange County health officials issued a warning to the public Thursday after a rabid bat was discovered in a residential area of San Juan Capistrano.
Anyone who might have had contact with a bat in the vicinity of Village and Marina roads is encouraged to call the Orange County Health Care Agency at (714) 834-8180 so that a nurse can evaluate the person's risk of contracting rabies.

top

Prevalence of Listeria spp. and antibiotic susceptibility of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from raw chicken and ready-to-eat chicken products in Jordan
21.oct.10
Food Control
Tareq M. Osaili1, Akram R. Alaboudi and Ehab A. Nesiar
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6S-5192136-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F21%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cfb347612e1b1964efccb5b7daca8031&searchtype=a
Abstract
Listeria monocytogenes is the causal agent of listeriosis, a disease that can be serious and is often fatal in susceptible individuals. The objective of the study was to determine the prevalence of Listeria spp. in raw chicken and ready-to-eat (RTE) chicken products in Amman, Jordan and the antimicrobial resistance of L. monocytogenes isolates. A total of 280 raw chicken and RTE chicken products (chicken-shawirma, chicken-burger, chicken-sausage and mortadella) were collected from Amman abattoir and local retail markets in Amman city. Listeria spp. were isolated by the conventional International Organization for Standardization (ISO) method and L. monocytogenes identified by biochemical and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Results of conventional method showed that out of total 280 samples, 141 (50%) were found to be contaminated with Listeria spp. [L. monocytogenes (18.2%), L. ivanovi (26.1%), L. grayi (3.5%), L. seeligeri (1.8), L. welshimeri (0.7%)]. The PCR confirmed all L. monocytogenes isolates (51 isolates: 15 from raw dressed broiler chicken, 23 from chicken-burger, 9 from chicken-sausage, and 4 from chicken-shawirma). Five of the tested L. monocytogenes isolates were resistance to two antibiotics (tilimicosin and tetracycline) among the ten tested antibiotics as determined by microbroth dilution method. The results presented in this study indicate the potential risk of contamination of RTE chicken products with L. monocytogenes.

top

Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis typing of human and retail foodstuff Campylobacters: an Irish perspective
21.oct.10
Food Control
Aoife M. O'Leary, Paul Whyte, Robert H. Madden, Martin Cormican, John E. Moore, Eleanor Mc Namara, Kevina Mc Gill, Lorraine Kelly, Damien Cowley, Lynn Moran, Pam Scates, J. Dan Collins and Cyril V. Carroll
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFP-519214J-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F21%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=013ddefeeba9407cd77597725ee5f78f&searchtype=a
Abstract
Campylobacter enteritis is a zoonosis, an infectious disease transmissible under normal conditions from vertebrate animals to man, presenting a major global public health burden. In this study, Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) was employed to identify common genotypes in a collection of 600 Campylobacter isolates in order to investigate if profiles obtained from retail samples of foodstuffs matched genotypes causing illness in the community in Ireland. The campylobacters were isolated from retail foodstuffs, and cases of gastroenteritis, over the same 20-month period in three population centres in Ireland. The major observation made was of a high level of PFGE-genotype heterogeneity; 236 SmaI discrete genotypes were found in 507 strains successfully analysed. Analysis of the PFGE profiles revealed 22 common profiles amongst food isolates and those causing enteritis in humans. These cojoint PFGE genotypes indicate that 56 (38 %) of the human clinical isolates are genetically related to 129 (36 %) of the food isolates. The identification of these recurrent PFGE types, in the sampled Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni populations, indicates that a high proportion of Campylobacter isolates found in foods of animal origin also occur in patients with symptoms of enteritis. This data adds weight to the epidemiological hypothesis that a high proportion of human Campylobacter cases are contracted via the handling and consumption of contaminated foodstuffs, in particular poultry.

top

Fresh Produce Discussion Blog

Friday, October 22, 2010

Fw: (Fresh Produce) ACTION: Notice. Comment Request; Guide To Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables

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

Fw: CFSAN Constituent Update October 22, 2010

Fw: Lincoln Statement on Release of Albert Pike Flood Report

Fw: USDA Provides Disaster Assistance to Producers of Rice, UplandCotton, Soybeans and Sweet Potatoes

Fw: FDA Heightens Focus on Retail Food Safety

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

Contributors

Links

Previous Posts

Archives