Expanding the list of bad [foodborne disease causing] bacteria?

There is currently a push to put a zero tolerance on four strains of drug-resistant salmonella in uncooked meat (link below). This comes after the 2011 outbreak of Salmonella linked to ground beef where 20 people were reported to become ill. (http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/typhimurium-groundbeef/020112/index.html). The responsible organism was a multi-drug resistant strain of Salmonella Typhimurium.

Another recent expansion was the addition of 6 strains of E. coli non-O157 STEC. Although the testing program was to go into effect in March of 2012, it was pushed pack to June of 2012. The reason relates to the lack of validated test methods to detect the specific pathogenic strains (link below).

Looking for a given bacterial species is difficult enough, but when we have to look for strains of bacteria containing specific genes, reliable testing is not always easy. Throw in the fact that the product being tested is raw, and that the prevalence of bacteria is very low, and it makes one question to what degree can we track and eliminate the sources. (For example, FSIS reports the prevalence of Salmonella in ground beef is about 2% (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Progress_Report_Salmonella_Testing.pdf), and in a 2009 study by ARS, the level for MDR Salmonella was only 0.6% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19201965)).  

Will consumers benefit? Will public health be better served? Will regulatory requirements for zero tolerance be enforceable or achievable?

Interesting note, a consumer group recently requested that FDA put a zero tolerance of Vibrio vulnificus on oysters (http://cspinet.org/new/201202091.html) to help protect those who choose to consume raw oysters. Vibrio vulnificus is a natural contaminate in waters where oysters are harvested, especially in the warmer months. In most all cases, the organism affects those who have underlying medical condition, primarily past or present alcohol abuse. Are oyster fisherman going to start testing oysters before delivering to the local shuck house? Why not just make it illegal to consumer raw oysters?

Salmonella Outbreak Spurs Call to Expand List of Banned Bacteria
February 08, 2012, 1:59 PM EST
Bloomberg Businessweek
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-08/salmonella-outbreak-spurs-call-to-expand-list-of-banned-bacteria.html
By Stephanie Armour

Regrouping after Listeria on Cantaloupe

One bad cantaloupe [farmer] can spoil the whole bunch….in the LA Times article (below), we see another example of negative impact on an entire industry caused by a producer using less-than-good practices. Interestingly stated, “…California shipped more cantaloupe in a day than Colorado[where the incident occurred] in their whole season. Millions and millions of cantaloupe, healthy and fine."  Now these California producers are not planting as much while trying to spin the story as best they can.

In this digital news age where any tragedy is reported instantly, and then pounded on for days, while often providing little or no information to the specifics, we can’t expect consumers to act much differently.  Consumers want to avoid risk, and if that means forgoing an entire commodity item, then so be it.  There are other, perceivably safer alternatives in the marketplace for consumers to choose.

The point that is hard to understand is how do producers or processors not choose to follow best practices.  Do they know what best practices are for their industry?  Do they truly understand the risks associated with their product and process?

Because of this gap in what is done and what should be done by a some less-than-good companies, and this is probably a small group, government steps in with regulations such as those to be enacted by the new Food Safety Modernization Act legislation.  And still, many companies and industry groups fight against new legislation or having to comply with the proposed regulation.  Granted, some components of the regulation may be initially overkill or not well thought out, but this is where the comment period provides a chance for those with issues to voice their objections.  And the better industry groups work with the agencies to iron out the rough spots within the proposed regulation.

In the news, we hear of companies who decide to get out of the business rather than comply with new regulations.  Some see this loss of a local employer at tragic.  Not me.  If companies are not willing to keep up, if they are not willing to continually update themselves and their employees on the science and technology associated with making safe food, then it is best for the industry that they leave it to those who are.  Certainly, there is a cost to continual improvement, but resources are available through industry groups, government agencies, and academic institutions (including Extension).  It’s not “get big or get out”, it’s “get smart or get out”.

California cantaloupe farms regroup after listeria outbreak

California's Central Valley is 1,300 miles from the Colorado farm linked to a deadly listeria outbreak. But that hasn't registered with the public. Cantaloupe growers hope to change that.

By Diana Marcum, Los Angeles Times
January 5, 2012, 3:53 p.m
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cantaloupe-crop-20120106,0,6658258.story?page=1&utm_medium=feed&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20latimes%2Fbusiness%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Business%29&utm_source=feedburner

Impact of FSMA on Recalls through Improved Prerequisite Programs

It is amazing to see the number of recalls that are issued each week. I put put together the listing of the recalls that occurred within the last week (Dec 6 to 12, 2012).  There are a range of items, most, if not all, related to prerequisite program issues (allergen control and labeling, supplier/ingredient control, environmental control).

In an article written by David Acheson, http://leavittpartnersblog.com/20113304/david-acheson/fda%E2%80%99s-views-on-preventive-control-requirements-beginning-to-emerge-time-to-go-beyond-haccp, he provides a view of FDA official comments, specifically that FSMA will go beyond HACCP. He suggests that FDA will put in more specific guidance to address key elements of food safety programs,  pointing out that environmental monitoring and training will be two highlighted areas.  Looking at the recalls we are seeing, it is hard to argue that prerequisite programs have become the primary issue with regard to outbreaks and recalls.  Companies should begin looking at all programs that are responsible for controlling hazards to ensure they address monitoring, corrective actions, and verification.

While some will bristle at additional requirements, the cost of conducting a recall due to lack of control is worth the effort for improving low risk hazards are controlled.

Food Safety Bill Passes

It has been a long time coming, but the Food Safety Modernization Act is just a President's signature away.  But does it mean our food will be safer once that ink is dry...not by a long shot.  As in the LA Times article (link below), there are funding concerns.  And then, the FDA has to convert this into an actual regulation.  The battles will continue as it transformed into a document that will be actually implemented.  What will the FDA require as far as food safety plans....will it be similar to Seafood HACCP, or will it be watered down to a point that it has little resemblance to what we know as HACCP?  There is much debate to come. 

And once in place, will our food be safer? Not totally.   Putting regulations in place does not guarantee that some owner won't knowingly ship contaminated product, or that some farmer inadvertently irrigates his leafy greens with contaminated water.  But in most likelihood, it will improve the overall food safety system, thus reducing the overall risk.  The increased probability of an inspection for an establishment that never had an inspection before may make the owner maintain a cleaner establishment.  Having more control on imported good will reduce the risk of another melamine incident. Requiring a food safety plan, or HACCP, not only means that a company has to really think about how they will control food safety, but this plan serves as a guide for the inspector who audits the facility.  More importantly, requiring HACCP may lead to the need for training for the people making food.  In order to develop an acceptable plan, companies will need to learn more about the hazards associated with their process, and this will be a step towards bringing all companies up to a higher level of understanding food safety risks.

So don't look for this new legislation to eliminate foodborne illness altogether, but rather, it will be a step towards reducing risks and thus increasing the safety of the food throughout the supply continuum.

M. Bucknavage

Food-safety bill backed by House

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122106190.html

 By Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 22, 2010

The House passed a measure to overhaul the nation's food-safety laws by a vote of 215 to 144 Tuesday afternoon, and President Obama is expected to sign it into law as soon as Wednesday.

The vote marked the final hurdle for a bill that cleared an unusual number of obstacles, despite enjoying bipartisan support and backing from a wide array of groups across the political spectrum, from the Consumers Union to the Chamber of Commerce.

"This is a big victory for consumers that finally brings food-safety laws into the 21st century," said Jean Halloran of Consumers Union. "This win is a powerful testament to the people across the country who came to Washington to tell their lawmakers how contaminated food had killed their loved ones or left them horribly sick. This win is for them and all Americans."

But some critics said the new legislation will expand the reach of the federal government without making food safer. "The federal food bureaucracy needs to get smarter and better coordinated, not more omnipotent," said Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.).

The proposal survived filibuster threats in the Senate, constitutional confusion and tensions between big agricultural companies and the burgeoning local food movement.

The setbacks repeatedly sent the bill back to both chambers, where new challenges arose. In the end, the House voted on it three times and the Senate twice.
The legislation will affect all whole and processed foods except meat, poultry and some egg products, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

It is the first major change to the nation's food safety laws since 1938, and comes after a series of national outbreaks of food-borne illnesses linked to a wide varietyof foods, including spinach, peanuts and eggs.
"I beg you, the safety of your constituents is at stake," Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) said during debate on the House floor.

Unlike the current system, which relies on federal officials to trace the source of an outbreak to its origin after consumers have become ill, the new requirements are designed to create a system in which manufacturers and farmers come up with strategies to prevent contamination, then continually test to make sure they work.

The bill includes an exemption for small farmers and food processors, and those who sell directly to the public at farmers markets and farm stands. That exemption was pushed by advocates for local food, who argued that small producers would not be able to afford the testing and record-keeping required by the legislation. But it drew objections from major agricultural producers, which argued that no one should be exempt from producing safe food.

The exemptions "will limit the ability of the [Food and Drug Administration] to assure consumers that all foods they purchase, whether at grocery stores, restaurants, farm markets or elsewhere, have met the same food-safety standards," said Robert Guenther of United Fresh Produce Association, which represents the major fruit and vegetable growers.

"We remain fearful that this profound error will come back to haunt Congress, public health agencies and even those who thought they would benefit from food safety exemptions, but more importantly, we are fearful of what may slip through the food safety loopholes . . . and adversely affect consumers."
The measure also gives the FDA the authority to recall food; now, it must rely on food companies to voluntarily pull products off the shelves. And the bill would give the FDA access to internal records at farms and food-production facilities.

The bill would for the first time require importers to verify that their products from overseas meet U.S. safety standards.

One in six Americans becomes ill from tainted food each year, and 3,000 die, according to government estimates. Businesses spend billions of dollars as a result of lost sales, recalls and legal expenses triggered by the problem.

The measure is expected to cost $1.4 billion over the next four years, including the expense of hiring 2,000 new FDA inspectors.

LA Times Article
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-food-safety-20101222,0,5901585.story

Food Modernization Act Passes Senate

The Food Safety Modernization Act took another step forward by passing the Senate.  It must now go to the House where there will be debate on whether to pass as is or to wrangle  some more.  If there is more wrangling on the provisions, it may die.  A few important notes:

·         This does not affect USDA facilities.

·         The House had its own version, but it additional components that would render it less likely to pass, including fees to food companies for registration.

·         There are questions how it would impact small farmers

·         Require all facilities to have a HACCP type system in place.  While this gets little notice by the press, I see this as a major benefit.

·         Provide more record access to FDA during food emergencies

·         Improve import food safety

Senate Passes Overhaul of Food Safety Regulations

By GARDINER HARRIS and WILLIAM NEUMAN in the New York Times

Published: November 30, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday passed a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s food-safety system, after recalls of tainted eggs, peanut butter and spinach sickened thousands and led major food makers to join consumer advocates in demanding stronger government oversight.

The legislation, which passed by a vote of 73 to 25, would greatly strengthen the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that in recent decades focused more on policing medical products than ensuring the safety of foods. The bill is intended to get the government to crack down on unsafe foods before they harm people rather than after outbreaks occur.

Despite unusual bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and a strong push from the Obama administration, the bill could still die because there might not be enough time for the usual haggling between the Senate and House of Representatives, which passed its own version last year. Top House Democrats said that they would consider simply passing the Senate version to speed approval.

Both versions of the bill would grant the F.D.A. new powers to recall tainted foods, increase inspections, demand accountability from food companies and oversee farming. But neither version would consolidate overlapping functions at the Department of Agriculture and nearly a dozen other federal agencies that oversee various aspects of food safety, making coordination among the agencies a continuing challenge.

While food-safety advocates and many industry groups preferred the House version because it includes more money for inspections and fewer exceptions from the rules it sets out, most said the Senate bill was far better than nothing.

“This is an historic moment,” said Erik Olson, deputy director of the Pew Health Group, an advocacy group. “For the first time in over 70 years, the Senate has approved an overhaul of F.D.A.’s food safety law that will help ensure that the food we put on our kitchen tables will be safer.”

Among the Senate bill’s last major sticking points was how it would affect small farmers and food producers. Some small-farm and organic food advocates warned that the legislation would destroy their industry under a mountain of paperwork, and Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat of Montana, pushed for a recent addition to the bill that exempts producers with less than $500,000 a year in sales who sell most of their food locally.

That provision led the United Fresh Produce Association, a trade group, to announce recently that it would oppose the legislation since small food operations have been the source of some food recalls in recent years.

But Randy Napier of Medina, Ohio, said the Senate bill was better than nothing. Mr. Napier’s 80-year-old mother, Nellie Napier, died in January 2009 after the nursing home in which she lived continued to feed her contaminated peanut butter even after she got sick.

“I am appalled at what I have found out since my mother’s death about how poorly food is regulated and how these companies cut corners to save money,” Mr. Napier said.

The staunch opposition of Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, forced months of delay and eventually required Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to call a series of time-consuming procedural votes to end debate. Mr. Coburn offered his own version of the legislation eliminating many of its requirements because he said less regulation was needed, not more, but that version failed.

Despite Mr. Coburn’s opposition, the bill is one of the only major pieces of bipartisan legislation to emerge from this Congress. Some Republican and Democratic Senate staff members — who in previous terms would have seen each other routinely — met for the first time during the food negotiations. The group bonded over snacks: specifically, Starburst candies from a staff member of Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and jelly beans from a staff member of Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. And in the midst of negotiations, the negotiators — nearly all women — took a field trip to a nearby food market so that a Republican staff member could teach the Democrats how to buy high-quality steaks.

“This legislation means that parents who tell their kids to eat their spinach can be assured that it won’t make them sick,” said Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa who, as chairman of the Senate health committee, shepherded the legislation through months of negotiations.

Health advocates are hoping the legislation will rekindle the progress — now stalled — that the nation once enjoyed in reducing the tens of millions of food contamination illnesses that occur each year. In the case of toxic salmonella, infections may be creeping upward.

Part of the problem is the growing industrialization and globalization of the nation’s food supply. Nearly a fifth of the nation’s food supply and as much as three-quarters of its seafood are imported, but the F.D.A. inspects less than one pound in a million of such imported foods. The bill gives the F.D.A. more control over food imports, including increased inspection of foreign processing plants and the ability to set standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown abroad.

And as food suppliers grow in size, problems at one facility can sicken thousands all over the country. The Peanut Corporation of America’s contaminated paste was included in scores of cookies and snacks made by big and small companies. The legislation would raise standards at such plants by demanding that food companies write plans to manufacture foods safely and conduct routine tests to ensure that the plans are adequate.

The bill would give the F.D.A. the power to demand food recalls. The Bush Administration for years opposed such powers, saying that food manufacturers invariably complied when asked by the government to undertake a recall. But last year, the F.D.A. asked a distributor of pistachios to recall its entire 2008 crop after tests showed salmonella contamination at its processing plant. Days passed before the company complied.

The legislation greatly increases the number of inspections the F.D.A. must conduct of food processing plants, with an emphasis on foods that are considered most high risk — although figuring out which ones are riskiest is an uncertain science. Until recently, peanut butter would not have made the list.

Whether the agency gets the money to conduct such inspections is far from certain. The House version would require food producers to pay a modest annual fee to help fund inspections, but that provision was excluded from the Senate version. The Senate bill also requires grocery stores to post prominently a list of recently recalled foods or alert consumers in other ways, a provision championed by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York.

Neither version of the bill applies to slaughterhouses or most meat and poultry processing plants, which are under the jurisdiction of the agriculture department. Both versions would affect about 80 percent of the food supply, including fresh fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products and processed foods that do not contain meat.

Industry organizations backed the legislative push because of the high costs for many companies of the food scares of recent years. Egg sales fell nationwide after the massive egg recall this summer, even though only two producers were implicated. Several years ago, contaminated spinach from one small producer led the entire industry’s crop to be destroyed.

Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, an advocacy group that sees government regulation as a threat to small farms, said she was satisfied with changes made to the bill to reduce paperwork for small farmers and exempt them from some requirements.

“We still have concerns about the scope of the power that F.D.A. has and its tendency to write rules and regulations that favor agribusiness instead of small farmers,” Ms. McGeary said.

Scott Faber, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents most large food processors, said that food sales in the United States and abroad depended on people believing that food is safe.

“Consumer trust is the foundation of everything food companies do, and the industry recognized we needed a stronger partner at F.D.A. if we were going to restore trust in the safety of our food supplies,” Mr. Faber said.

Consumer advocates were jubilant.

“Everyone who eats will benefit,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “F.D.A. will have new tools to help ensure that we have a safer food supply that causes fewer outbreaks and illnesses.”