USDA Finalizes Rule on Record Keeping for Ground Beef

USDA finalized its rule for record keeping requirements for retail and USDA regulated establishment needed for grinding ground beef.  Under this rule, FSIS will require that all official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products maintain these records:

• The establishment numbers of establishments supplying material used to prepare each lot of raw ground beef product;
• All supplier lot numbers and production dates;
• The names of the supplied materials, including beef components and any materials carried over from one production lot to the next;
• The date and time each lot of raw ground beef product is produced;
• The date and time when grinding equipment and other related food-contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized.

These requirements also apply to raw beef products that are ground at an individual customer’s request when new source materials are used.

 

 

USDA News Release

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/news-releases-statements-transcripts/news-release-archives-by-year/archive/2015/nr-121415-01

USDA Finalizes Rule to Enhance Consumer Protection, Ensure Retailers Can Track Sources of Ground Meats

 

Congressional and Public Affairs  Josh Stull, (202) 720-9113

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2015 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today announced a new measure that will improve the agency’s ability to determine the source of foodborne illnesses linked to ground beef, stopping foodborne illness outbreaks sooner when they occur. Based on lessons learned from previous outbreak investigations, FSIS is requiring that all makers of raw ground beef products keep adequate records of the source material, so that the agency can quickly work with the suppliers to recall contaminated product.

One Food Agency - Is Marginal Benefit Worth the Potential Costs?

Over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk involving one food agency, and with the recent Administration proposal, perhaps there is a little momentum...little being the key word.  And much of the media seems to think it would be a good idea, and perhaps it is, but as pointed out in a commentary by Froma Harrop, (below) many of the arguments for one agency have little to do with food safety.  I agree.    The media sensationalism of outbreak events has given the general public a very skewed view of risk associated with food.

Now if combining into one agency would help to any great degree, perhaps, but at what cost.  Pulling the primary facets of regulatory oversight out of two agencies and creating another is unlikely to be a cost saving proposition.  Rather, and more likely, it would be more, much more.  We only need to look at the health care overhaul to see that it is very difficult to add agencies without enormous cost escalations.

Columbus Dispatch
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/02/25/1-in-debate-over-food-safety-system-lets-keep-it-honest.html
Froma Harrop commentary: In debate over food-safety system, let’s keep it honest



As things now stand, the U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees steaks, chicken thighs and eggs out of their shells. The Food and Drug Administration keeps an eye on salmon, apples and eggs in their shells.

Fifteen government entities now supervise food safety, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (seafood).

President Barack Obama wants to consolidate all these food monitoring functions in a yet-to-be-created Food Safety Administration. Makes sense.

Measles Vaccination - Science versus Politicians

This past week, a number of political candidates have put their support behind parental choice when it comes to vaccination.  This goes against the science in order to secure political points in the name of 'freedom'.  

There are growing numbers of people who are avoiding giving their children vaccinations and this has led to measles cases in different parts of the country including California and New Jersey.
The unwillingness of some politicians to understand the science or to communicate the real risks should raise questions as to whether these individuals should be given leadership roles that can impact the overall wellbeing of the nation's citizenry.

This nice National Geographic piece (below) provides an overview of how we got to this point and the impact of having unvaccinated children.


National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150206-measles-vaccine-disney-outbreak-polio-health-science-infocus/
The Anti-Vaccine Generation: How Movement Against Shots Got Its Start
Mistrust and misinformation give a shot in the arm to measles vaccine naysayers.

Laura Parker
National Geographic
Published February 6, 2015

You could call New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul members of the "vax generation."

Reporting the Risks of Foodborne Illness

This past week, two reports relating to the topic of food risk were issued resulting in a media frenzy. 

One of those reports was CDC’s annual Trends in Foodborne Illness in the United States 2012 (below). CDC analyzes data from FoodNet, a system that tracks foodborne illness in roughly 10 states, and then projects these numbers for the entire country. News stories that were issued, including this Time article (http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/22/cdc-food-safety-report-card/), point out that the rates of foodborne illness have largely remained unchanged.   

Salmonella still remains one of the most common causes of foodborne illness and the number of cases remained roughly the same.

The report indicated that there was an increase in the rate of Campylobacter infection I think it can be argued however, that this may be the result of increased testing for Campylobacter and that the methodology for testing has improved. Campylobacter has traditionally not been an easy organism to culture, so as methodologies have improved, one would guess that labs will find it more often. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/3/11-1266_article.htm.  

Raw poultry is a main source of Campylobacter, and while the industry is working to reduce levels on poultry, at this time there is no magic bullet for eliminating it from poultry at the processing level. So it comes down to the consumer controlling it through proper preparation (cooking it to the right temperature), as well as proper handling (preventing cross contamination of food items with the raw product).

Vibrio is another pathogenic organism that has seen an increase. The primary vehicle for Vibrio is raw oysters. There are not many cases reported, probably because there are not many people who eat raw oysters. If consumers ate raw oysters as much as they ate bagged leafy greens, the numbers for Vibrio infections would dwarf all others.

So have the numbers of foodborne illness changed? We know that there are foods that are risky (raw oysters), and that practices for handling and preparing food need to improve throughout the food chain from the farm to the table, but perhaps we can look for a sign from the businesses that aid victims of foodborne illness - the food illness lawyers. According to a posting by one of the preeminent firms from that group….business is down. http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/foodborne-illness-rates-continue-to-fall-and-that-is-a-good-thing/

The other report that garnered media attention, Risky Meat: A CSPI Field Guide to Meat & Poultry Safety (http://cspinet.org/foodsafety/riskymeat.html), was issued by Center for Science in the Public Interest. I think the title of this should have been title….Meats that Pose a Risk for Those Who Fail to Properly Cook and Clean. The strength of the CSPI report is that it reminds us that raw meat has the potential to carry pathogenic bacteria. But the sound bite heard over and over in the media was that chicken and hamburger are high risk meats. Well, these meats are only risky if they are not properly handled and prepared.

While the meat and poultry industry works to reduce the levels of pathogenic microorganisms on raw meat products, those items still have the potential to carry pathogenic microorganisms. But the risk is for people who mishandle or improperly prepare them. CSPI did provide guidance on proper handling and preparation.

 

Study: Cost of Foodborne Illness in US Estimated at $77 billion

This study gives us an idea of the costs related to foodborne illness, and is great to use in presentations, but as the author points out, the numbers are limited in their application to justify any particular action in reducing foodborne illness.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/jan0312cost.html