The recalls have continued for products using the potentially contaminated dairy powders from Valley Dairy. A list of recalls products through 12/21/16 is posted here.
Mikesell’s Recalls 2.25 Oz. Nacho Cheese Tortilla Chips Because Of Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release December 29, 2016
Showing posts with label suppliers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suppliers. Show all posts
Monday, January 2, 2017
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Gift Baskets Packed with Recalled Savory Twists
Those who purchased Wine County Gift Baskets in the past few months are being asked to check if they have Blue Cheese Savory Twists. This item is being recalled by Houdini Inc because recalled dairy powder was used as an ingredient. Consumers are to dispose of the product which may contain Salmonella.
There have not been any reported illnesses to date related to the dairy powder ingredient, but this is an example of how far ingredients can move in the supply chain. It is also a reminder of how a supplier's supplier can impact downstream sales, including repackers like this gift basket purveyor.
WPRI.com
WPRI.com
http://wpri.com/2016/12/19/salmonella-risk-prompts-recall-of-gift-basket-snack/
Salmonella risk prompts recall of gift basket snack
By Shaun Towne Published: December 19, 2016, 5:18 pm Updated: December 19, 2016, 5:27 pm
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — If you bought or received a Wine Country Gift Basket in the past few months, Rhode Island health officials are urging you to check for one snack in particular.
Salmonella risk prompts recall of gift basket snack
By Shaun Towne Published: December 19, 2016, 5:18 pm Updated: December 19, 2016, 5:27 pm
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — If you bought or received a Wine Country Gift Basket in the past few months, Rhode Island health officials are urging you to check for one snack in particular.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Co-Pack Facility Responsible for Ice Cream Recall Due to Listeria
A California company is recalling their fancy ice cream after FDA found Listeria in product and in the co-packing facility.
We see many entrepreneurs who focus on the marketing and sales and leave the manufacturing of the product to someone else. Know the risk associated with those products and understand how the co-packer is controlling that risk. Many would-be marketers ask if they should take a HACCP or Preventive Controls class - absolutely. Should you institute a supply-chain control program to including audit and testing - absolutely, especially if the hazard analysis identifies potential risks.
The AC Creamery recall is also related to this co-packer. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm527875.htm
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm528091.htm
McConnell’s Fine Ice Creams Recalls Select 16oz. Packages Due To Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release
November 4, 2016
We see many entrepreneurs who focus on the marketing and sales and leave the manufacturing of the product to someone else. Know the risk associated with those products and understand how the co-packer is controlling that risk. Many would-be marketers ask if they should take a HACCP or Preventive Controls class - absolutely. Should you institute a supply-chain control program to including audit and testing - absolutely, especially if the hazard analysis identifies potential risks.
The AC Creamery recall is also related to this co-packer. http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm527875.htm
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm528091.htm
McConnell’s Fine Ice Creams Recalls Select 16oz. Packages Due To Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release
November 4, 2016
Friday, October 14, 2016
Michigan Cheese Company Recalls Cheese Due to Supplier Listeria Issues
A Michigan company, Kuster's is recalling its institutional sized shredded, sliced and cubed cheese after the company was notified by their supplier, Farm Country Cheese, that there is the potential for Listeria contamination.
Farm County Cheese is no large industrial processor, quite the opposite. From the Farm County Cheese website:
Tradition ~ Heritage ~ CommunitySounds great, but if this is your supplier, are they controlling for Listeria? How about a FSMA required Supplier Preventive Control.
For over 25 years, Farm Country Cheese House has worked in partnership with our local Amish community to create fresh, antibiotic-free, artisanal cheeses. Located in Lakeview, Michigan (northeast of Grand Rapids), we are proud of the “family” of Amish farmers and workers who make up the majority of our staff. Our culture is supportive and kind, and we work together to bring the highest-quality and freshest cheese to you, our consumer.
Our cheeses are pure, simple, and clean. We use milk made by cows on our local Amish dairy farms, and follow Amish traditions and practices. Because the health and comfort of the cows is a top priority, the small dairy farms that we work with raise herds of only 4 to 20 cows, where each cow is hand-milked twice daily. In the operation of our equipment and business, we use minimal amounts of electricity, which is supplied to us by an electric cooperative.
FDA Recall Notice
Kuster's, Inc. Voluntarily Recalls Product Because Of Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release
October 12, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
CRF Recall Triggers Recalls by Additional Processors and Retailers
A number of other packers of frozen foods issued recalls after an ingredient supplier, CRF issued a recall last week. What started off as a massive recall continues to get bigger as product produced by CRF was repacked by other frozen food companies.
The list below in includes recalls from Stahlbush Island Farms, Harris Teeter, Twin Cities, Pictsweet, and NORPAC.
The list below in includes recalls from Stahlbush Island Farms, Harris Teeter, Twin Cities, Pictsweet, and NORPAC.
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Hoijicha Tea Recalled Due to Salmonella in Ingredient
Frontier Natural Product Co-op based in and a self proclaimed 'major supplier in the booming natural products industry', is recalling Organic Hojicha Tea due to potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. The recall indicates the recall was initiated after an ingredient tested positive for Salmonella. (While it seems the supplier did the testing, it is hard to determine from how the notice was written.)..
So what is Hojicha tea? Good question. Well, Hojicha tea is a roasted tea that is more mild and has less caffeine. The roasting process makes the tea leaves reddish in color and gives the tea a ' a toasty, slightly caramel-like flavor'. Because of the lower caffeine level, it is often served with dinner.
So how would Salmonella get in the Hojicha? Another good question. If the tea supplier was responsible, and being the leaves were roasted, it would have to be a case of cross contamination in the post-roasting environment.
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm500342.htm
So what is Hojicha tea? Good question. Well, Hojicha tea is a roasted tea that is more mild and has less caffeine. The roasting process makes the tea leaves reddish in color and gives the tea a ' a toasty, slightly caramel-like flavor'. Because of the lower caffeine level, it is often served with dinner.
So how would Salmonella get in the Hojicha? Another good question. If the tea supplier was responsible, and being the leaves were roasted, it would have to be a case of cross contamination in the post-roasting environment.
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm500342.htm
Frontier Co-op Initiates Voluntary Recall of Organic Hojicha Tea Due to Possible Health Risk
Friday, May 6, 2016
Sunflower Seed Recall Forces a Large Cascade of Recalls
After SunOptima issued a recall for Listeria in sunflower seed, a number of their customers issued recalls. Probably more to come?
One this that would be good to know is how the sampling / testing occurred after product had shipped and was utilized by their customers.
Recalls listed below:
One this that would be good to know is how the sampling / testing occurred after product had shipped and was utilized by their customers.
Related Frozen Foods Recalls Point to Weakness in Supply Chain Controls - Only as Good as Your Supplier's Supplier
Two recalls for Listeria have been announced in wake of the CRF frozen produce recall, with probably more to come, One is from ConAgra Foods for organic frozen corn and peas sold under the Trader Joe's and Watts Brother labels. The other issued recall was by a Texas firm that is recalling fresh corn relish and bean salad. There will no doubt be more recalls to come as companies evaluate their supply chain.
At the heart of this is a very complex supply chain. CRF and Oregon Potato, two frozen food companies based in the Northwest are ground zero. The problem is that these companies produce product not only for retailers, but also for other manufactures through sales of bulk frozen product. What happens is this...as these seasonal produce items are harvested, much of it goes into bulk. Bulk allows manufacturers to repack product as needed to meet customer demand throughout the year. Within a given season, one company may pack more corn than they have sales for, so they sell bulk product to someone else who needs that product to fill their own orders. These transfers occur throughout the year and allow companies to be efficient in meeting the demand of their customers. That is the good part.
The problem arises when one of the companies has an issue, say Listeria, that then affects the whole chain. For example, Company A is repacking some mixed vegetable product and needs to purchase bulk peas or onions form Supplier B to help fill the order.. Now Company A, who has a great internal Listeria program, purchases Supplier B who may or may not have a good Listeria Program.. Supplier B provides a COA showing that lot was good (Listeria negative). But FDA makes a visit to Supplier B and in conducting environmental testing, they find Listeria in Supplier B's facility.. It could even be that Supplier B sold product to another company who is then implicated in an outbreak that traces back to Supplier B. In these cases, Company A must conduct a recall.
This can even go further back. Supplier B was a little short on onions and purchased onions from Supplier C to help fill their order to Company A. And it is found that Supplier C has an issue. That issue now becomes a problem for Supplier B as well as Company A. And if Company A is producing product for 10 different retailers, now you have a whole lot of retailers having to recall product. And if Supplier C was also selling bulk product to two other repacking companies who were producing product for a dozen more retailers, we can easily see how this can expand.
It is difficult to ensure that suppliers are adequately controlling risk, it can even be harder to make sure that the supplier's supplier is adequately controlling risk. Unfortunately, as logistics / purchasing people look to take advantage of co-packing opportunities, the true cost of risk control may not be considered. These costs can include extensive product testing, on-site visits, insistence that supplier institute aggressive Listeria control programs, etc. To be fair, Listeria control was probably not on many people mind when these deals were made. However, moving forward, it must become a part of the picture.
FDA Recall Notices
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm499623.htm
Company Announcement
When a company announces a recall, market withdrawal, or safety alert, the FDA posts the company's announcement as a public service. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.
Watts Brothers Farms Organic Mixed Vegetables, Organic Super Sweet Corn, And Organic Peas And Trader Joe's Organic Super Sweet Corn Recalled Because Of Possible Health RiskFor Immediate Release
At the heart of this is a very complex supply chain. CRF and Oregon Potato, two frozen food companies based in the Northwest are ground zero. The problem is that these companies produce product not only for retailers, but also for other manufactures through sales of bulk frozen product. What happens is this...as these seasonal produce items are harvested, much of it goes into bulk. Bulk allows manufacturers to repack product as needed to meet customer demand throughout the year. Within a given season, one company may pack more corn than they have sales for, so they sell bulk product to someone else who needs that product to fill their own orders. These transfers occur throughout the year and allow companies to be efficient in meeting the demand of their customers. That is the good part.
The problem arises when one of the companies has an issue, say Listeria, that then affects the whole chain. For example, Company A is repacking some mixed vegetable product and needs to purchase bulk peas or onions form Supplier B to help fill the order.. Now Company A, who has a great internal Listeria program, purchases Supplier B who may or may not have a good Listeria Program.. Supplier B provides a COA showing that lot was good (Listeria negative). But FDA makes a visit to Supplier B and in conducting environmental testing, they find Listeria in Supplier B's facility.. It could even be that Supplier B sold product to another company who is then implicated in an outbreak that traces back to Supplier B. In these cases, Company A must conduct a recall.
This can even go further back. Supplier B was a little short on onions and purchased onions from Supplier C to help fill their order to Company A. And it is found that Supplier C has an issue. That issue now becomes a problem for Supplier B as well as Company A. And if Company A is producing product for 10 different retailers, now you have a whole lot of retailers having to recall product. And if Supplier C was also selling bulk product to two other repacking companies who were producing product for a dozen more retailers, we can easily see how this can expand.
It is difficult to ensure that suppliers are adequately controlling risk, it can even be harder to make sure that the supplier's supplier is adequately controlling risk. Unfortunately, as logistics / purchasing people look to take advantage of co-packing opportunities, the true cost of risk control may not be considered. These costs can include extensive product testing, on-site visits, insistence that supplier institute aggressive Listeria control programs, etc. To be fair, Listeria control was probably not on many people mind when these deals were made. However, moving forward, it must become a part of the picture.
FDA Recall Notices
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm499623.htm
Company Announcement
When a company announces a recall, market withdrawal, or safety alert, the FDA posts the company's announcement as a public service. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.
Watts Brothers Farms Organic Mixed Vegetables, Organic Super Sweet Corn, And Organic Peas And Trader Joe's Organic Super Sweet Corn Recalled Because Of Possible Health RiskFor Immediate Release
Monday, March 14, 2016
Dietary Tea Product Recalled After Ingredient Tested Positive for Salmonella
An Arizona company is recalling its dietary powdered tea product after notification was received from their ingredient supplier of organic spinach powder had tested positive for Salmonella.
No illnesses have been reported.
So why is there spinach powder in tea?
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm490472.htm
Awareness Voluntary Recalls Boost Tea Due To Possible Salmonella Contamination
For Immediate Release
March 11, 2016
Contact
Consumers - Awareness Corp. (480) 615-3530 X556
Awareness Corp. of Mesa, AZ, is recalling its 7.4 ounce container of Boost Tea because it may be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream area and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections, endocarditis and arthritis.
No illnesses have been reported.
So why is there spinach powder in tea?
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm490472.htm
Awareness Voluntary Recalls Boost Tea Due To Possible Salmonella Contamination
For Immediate Release
March 11, 2016
Contact
Consumers - Awareness Corp. (480) 615-3530 X556
Awareness Corp. of Mesa, AZ, is recalling its 7.4 ounce container of Boost Tea because it may be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream area and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections, endocarditis and arthritis.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Starbucks Supplier Recalls Pre-Packaged Breakfast Sandwiches After Listeria Positive Food Contact Surface
A supplier for Starbucks is recalling pre-packaged breakfast sandwiches after that supplier had positive sample result on a food contact surface. While product did not test positive, a positive contact surface indicates the possibility that product could have been cross contaminated.
In assessing the risk, there are a few things to note. For one, the sandwich is shipped and stored frozen. While this will prevent growth during shipment, if the product is thawed and held for a period of days before use, there can be time for the organism to grow. As the number of organisms increases, this not only increases the chances of organisms surviving a heat treatment, but it also increases the risk of cross-contamination to other foods and food contact surfaces within the store environment as that product is handled.
These sandwich products would be heated by the store before serving, potentially lowering the chance of contamination. However, with heat-and-serve product, the heating process may not be controlled well enough or be hot enough to ensure complete destruction of the organism.
The next question will be on how good the facility's Listeria Control Program is. If the program is good and this happens to be an outlier, than this recall may be it. But if FDA finds little testing results to indicate a solid program, or they find a series of positive results with insufficient corrective action, they believe there is a higher risk and then push for additional recalls.
NBC News.com
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/sandwiches-recalled-starbucks-stores-over-listeria-concerns-n533356
Sandwiches Recalled from Starbucks Stores Over Listeria Concerns
Mar 7 2016, 2:03 pm ET
by Lucy Bayly
A food supplier has recalled pre-packaged sausage, egg, and cheddar cheese on English muffin breakfast sandwiches from Starbucks stores in Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma over concerns that the products may contain traces of listeria.
In assessing the risk, there are a few things to note. For one, the sandwich is shipped and stored frozen. While this will prevent growth during shipment, if the product is thawed and held for a period of days before use, there can be time for the organism to grow. As the number of organisms increases, this not only increases the chances of organisms surviving a heat treatment, but it also increases the risk of cross-contamination to other foods and food contact surfaces within the store environment as that product is handled.
These sandwich products would be heated by the store before serving, potentially lowering the chance of contamination. However, with heat-and-serve product, the heating process may not be controlled well enough or be hot enough to ensure complete destruction of the organism.
The next question will be on how good the facility's Listeria Control Program is. If the program is good and this happens to be an outlier, than this recall may be it. But if FDA finds little testing results to indicate a solid program, or they find a series of positive results with insufficient corrective action, they believe there is a higher risk and then push for additional recalls.
NBC News.com
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/sandwiches-recalled-starbucks-stores-over-listeria-concerns-n533356
Sandwiches Recalled from Starbucks Stores Over Listeria Concerns
Mar 7 2016, 2:03 pm ET
by Lucy Bayly
A food supplier has recalled pre-packaged sausage, egg, and cheddar cheese on English muffin breakfast sandwiches from Starbucks stores in Arkansas, Texas, and Oklahoma over concerns that the products may contain traces of listeria.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Chipotle Tightens Produce Supplier Control, Will Impact Local Suppliers
Chipotle is tightening its produce supplier control program after getting slammed by a foodborne illness outbreak associated with produce. The last outbreak, which was caused by E. coli 0126 contamination, affected 45 people in 6 different states. (The earlier report had the number at 35). This is the third major outbreak associated with this chain.
Chipotle's strategy was to utilize local growers wherever they could. But increasing the supplier requirements may mean that some of the local growers/producers will need to adapt, and as indicated in this story, there may be some that will be challenged. Chipotle's overall food safety strategy has stumbled, costing them billions...in terms for having to shut down their stores in the northwest, and having their stock price fall by 23% .
It is great to use local suppliers, but regardless of location or of size of the supplier, the same standards must be met.
Chipotle's strategy was to utilize local growers wherever they could. But increasing the supplier requirements may mean that some of the local growers/producers will need to adapt, and as indicated in this story, there may be some that will be challenged. Chipotle's overall food safety strategy has stumbled, costing them billions...in terms for having to shut down their stores in the northwest, and having their stock price fall by 23% .
It is great to use local suppliers, but regardless of location or of size of the supplier, the same standards must be met.
USA Today
Chipotle to tighten produce supplier rules after E. coli outbreak
Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY 6:01 p.m. EST December 2, 2015
Chipotle Mexican Grill will soon have stricter guidelines for its suppliers that will mean the chain will be using local produce less often, a move the company is making in the aftermath of an E. coli outbreak that sickened dozens of customers in six states.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Taco Seasoning Product Recalled for Peanut Allergen Due to Supplier Error
This is a great example where a supplier's poor allergen control program can lead to a recall by the company purchasing that used that contaminated ingredient in their products. In this case, a Mexican food processor purchased spice that was contaminated by peanut allergens that originated in the supplier's operation.
When purchasing ingredients, companies must rely on their supplier for controlling allergens, especially when that supplier handles a wide range of allergen containing ingredients. Spice and flavoring companies are two types of ingredient suppliers that often fit this description, but this can also includes most companies that have multiple ingredients (breading, processed meat products, etc), Purchasers need to know the types of allergens their suppliers are handling and the ability to control those allergens within their operation. In this particular case, peanut is a type of allergen where even a little amount can be very harmful to a person how is allergic.
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm423216.htm
B&G Foods Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut And Almond In Product
Contact
Consumer: 877-929-2576 www.ortega.com
Media: Ernest DelBuono 202-973-1318
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – November 14, 2014 – B&G Foods announced today it is voluntarily recalling certain Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix, Ortega Taco Sauce, Ortega Enchilada Sauce and Ortega Taco Kit products and certain Las Palmas Taco Seasoning Mix and Las Palmas Taco Sauce products after learning that one or more of the spice ingredients purchased from a third party supplier contain peanuts and almonds, allergens that are not declared on the products’ ingredient statements. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts and almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. There is no health risk associated with these products for individuals without an allergy to peanuts or almonds.
This recall affects the following products: See List
The recalled products were distributed in retail stores and foodservice outlets nationwide.
This recall does not apply to any other sizes or varieties of Ortega Seasoning Mix or to any Ortega Seasoning Mixes in canisters, all of which are correctly labeled. For example, this recall does not include Ortega Fajita Seasoning Mix, Ortega Fish Taco Seasoning Mix, Ortega Chili Seasoning Mix, Ortega Chipotle Seasoning Mix or Ortega Burrito Seasoning Mix, all of which are correctly labeled. This recall also does not include any Las Palmas Enchilada Sauce, which is correctly labeled.
“The safety of our consumers is our number one priority. We are committed to providing safe, quality products while observing the highest ethical standards in the conduct of our business,” said William Wright, Executive Vice President of Quality Assurance and R&D at B&G Foods. “The core values that we’ve embodied since the company was founded in the 1800s — honesty, integrity and accountability — guide our actions as we take the appropriate measures to address this issue.”
This recall was initiated in consultation with the FDA after it was discovered that ingredients from a single supplier used in the affected products were contaminated with peanut and almond allergens. B&G Foods has since terminated its relationship with this supplier and is receiving these ingredients from other sources in anticipation of resuming production shortly.
Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company’s recall hotline at 877-929-2576 from 8:00 a.m. ET to 8:00 p.m. ET, or visit www.ortega.com for additional information.
About B&G Foods
B&G Foods, Inc. (NYSE: BGS) and its subsidiaries manufacture, sell and distribute a diversified portfolio of high-quality, branded shelf-stable foods across the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, B&G Foods’ products are marketed under many recognized brands, including Ac’cent, B&G, B&M, Baker’s Joy, Bear Creek Country Kitchens, Brer Rabbit, Canoleo, Cary’s, Cream of Rice, Cream of Wheat, Devonsheer, Don Pepino, Emeril’s, Grandma’s Molasses, JJ Flats, Joan of Arc, Las Palmas, MacDonald’s, Maple Grove Farms, Molly McButter, Mrs. Dash, New York Flatbreads, New York Style, Old London, Original Tings, Ortega, Pirate’s Booty, Polaner, Red Devil, Regina, Rickland Orchards, Sa‑són, Sclafani, Smart Puffs, Spring Tree, Sugar Twin, Trappey’s, TrueNorth, Underwood, Vermont Maid and Wright’s. B&G Foods also sells and distributes two branded household products, Static Guard and Kleen Guard.
When purchasing ingredients, companies must rely on their supplier for controlling allergens, especially when that supplier handles a wide range of allergen containing ingredients. Spice and flavoring companies are two types of ingredient suppliers that often fit this description, but this can also includes most companies that have multiple ingredients (breading, processed meat products, etc), Purchasers need to know the types of allergens their suppliers are handling and the ability to control those allergens within their operation. In this particular case, peanut is a type of allergen where even a little amount can be very harmful to a person how is allergic.
FDA Recall Notice
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm423216.htm
B&G Foods Issues Allergy Alert On Undeclared Peanut And Almond In Product
Contact
Consumer: 877-929-2576 www.ortega.com
Media: Ernest DelBuono 202-973-1318
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – November 14, 2014 – B&G Foods announced today it is voluntarily recalling certain Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix, Ortega Taco Sauce, Ortega Enchilada Sauce and Ortega Taco Kit products and certain Las Palmas Taco Seasoning Mix and Las Palmas Taco Sauce products after learning that one or more of the spice ingredients purchased from a third party supplier contain peanuts and almonds, allergens that are not declared on the products’ ingredient statements. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts and almonds run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. There is no health risk associated with these products for individuals without an allergy to peanuts or almonds.
This recall affects the following products: See List
The recalled products were distributed in retail stores and foodservice outlets nationwide.
This recall does not apply to any other sizes or varieties of Ortega Seasoning Mix or to any Ortega Seasoning Mixes in canisters, all of which are correctly labeled. For example, this recall does not include Ortega Fajita Seasoning Mix, Ortega Fish Taco Seasoning Mix, Ortega Chili Seasoning Mix, Ortega Chipotle Seasoning Mix or Ortega Burrito Seasoning Mix, all of which are correctly labeled. This recall also does not include any Las Palmas Enchilada Sauce, which is correctly labeled.
“The safety of our consumers is our number one priority. We are committed to providing safe, quality products while observing the highest ethical standards in the conduct of our business,” said William Wright, Executive Vice President of Quality Assurance and R&D at B&G Foods. “The core values that we’ve embodied since the company was founded in the 1800s — honesty, integrity and accountability — guide our actions as we take the appropriate measures to address this issue.”
This recall was initiated in consultation with the FDA after it was discovered that ingredients from a single supplier used in the affected products were contaminated with peanut and almond allergens. B&G Foods has since terminated its relationship with this supplier and is receiving these ingredients from other sources in anticipation of resuming production shortly.
Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company’s recall hotline at 877-929-2576 from 8:00 a.m. ET to 8:00 p.m. ET, or visit www.ortega.com for additional information.
About B&G Foods
B&G Foods, Inc. (NYSE: BGS) and its subsidiaries manufacture, sell and distribute a diversified portfolio of high-quality, branded shelf-stable foods across the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Based in Parsippany, New Jersey, B&G Foods’ products are marketed under many recognized brands, including Ac’cent, B&G, B&M, Baker’s Joy, Bear Creek Country Kitchens, Brer Rabbit, Canoleo, Cary’s, Cream of Rice, Cream of Wheat, Devonsheer, Don Pepino, Emeril’s, Grandma’s Molasses, JJ Flats, Joan of Arc, Las Palmas, MacDonald’s, Maple Grove Farms, Molly McButter, Mrs. Dash, New York Flatbreads, New York Style, Old London, Original Tings, Ortega, Pirate’s Booty, Polaner, Red Devil, Regina, Rickland Orchards, Sa‑són, Sclafani, Smart Puffs, Spring Tree, Sugar Twin, Trappey’s, TrueNorth, Underwood, Vermont Maid and Wright’s. B&G Foods also sells and distributes two branded household products, Static Guard and Kleen Guard.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Changing Times for Risk Management in the Food Supply Chain
How much do you know and trust your food supply chain? David Acheson’s fine opinion piece (below) discusses the impact of the lawsuit against Jensen Farms in the cantaloupe related listeria outbreak and the need for managing risk in an establishment’s food supply chain. The cantaloupe related lawsuit is posed to go beyond Jensen Farms and pursue those who handled or sold the contaminated produce as well as the company that inspected the processing facility. Is this the next development in requirements for the food industry?
A few comments on a few of the impactful points he makes:
The need for tighter control of suppliers, going beyond the third party audit, especially for high risk food products. Companies have become too reliant on third party audits to evaluate suppliers. As those who may be familiar with this process know, the value of that audit all comes down to the inspector’s ability to identify critical issues within a company’s food safety system. As past recalls have shown, there are knowledgeable auditors and those that are not so. And then there has been the issues with the supplier paying for the audit, that potential trade-off between the achieving a good score and providing an accurate assessment. A third party audit is just a part of the food safety system, but not the only component. And like any food safety program, it must be managed.
The potential negative impact on small suppliers. Many retailers and foodservice companies rely on small companies to create and manufacturer private label products. There is also a movement to use local farmers to supply produce. If food companies must take a higher level of responsibility for everyone that is producing, processing, and delivering products, there can be a trend for companies to either integrate operations or for them to use few suppliers that they can better manage. This consolidation would potentially result in the use of a few larger establishments that can provide all companies needs instead of using a patchwork of smaller suppliers.
We have come to a confluence of somewhat opposing trends – the desire of consumers to have fresher foods that require less preparation and are available year round (w/ the subsequent increase in the amount of imported foods), the movement towards local foods (and smaller firms that may or may not have the required level of food safety systems in place), an ever improving foodborne-disease-detection system, and a lawsuit-driven punishment system that appears ready to go beyond the responsible party and collect retribution from the linked food chain. Is it possible to develop trust through validation and verification of the supply chain?
Today: Walmart, Kroger, Primus. Tomorrow: You?by David Acheson on June 7, 2012 in Food Safety
http://leavittpartnersblog.com/2012/06/today-walmart-kroger-primus-tomorrow-you/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=today-walmart-kroger-primus-tomorrow-you
Last week, Jensen Farms, the grower of the cantaloupe implicated in the Listeria outbreak of 2011, filed for bankruptcy. Prominently listed in the filing were lawsuits associated with the outbreak, from which 146 people were sickened and 36 died. According to the Denver Post, Jensen’s attorney said the filing should free up millions of dollars in insurance and other funds.
Foodborne illness attorney Bill Marler has filed at least 11 lawsuits and is representing almost 40 families or persons said to have been sickened or killed because of the contaminated cantaloupe. According to an article in Marler-published Food Safety News, the bankruptcy filing means that his clients “can move on to file lawsuits against companies further down the supply chain: Frontera Produce, the cantaloupe distributor; retailers such as Walmart and Kroger; and Primus Labs, the third-party auditor whose subcontractor, Bio-Food Safety, gave Jensen Farms facilities a ‘superior’ inspection rating just six days before the outbreak began.”
“Bankruptcy of Jensen Farms was a necessary prerequisite to allowing families of those who died and those who were injured to seek compensation against Frontera, Primus, suppliers and retailers,” Marler said.
If Mr. Marler is successful in bringing and winning these cases, it is telling us that someone as distant from the farm as the retailer is highly vulnerable to being sued if a farmer’s product makes someone sick and that farm then declares bankruptcy. If you sell adulterated food – or have some role in handling, distributing, or maybe even transporting anywhere along the food chain of that adulterated food, you would be liable to some extent – regardless of the cause or origination of the contamination.
What does this mean to you and the industry?
We are back to that old issue of controlling risk in the supply chain. It is becoming increasingly important that you spend time assessing and addressing risk across your product line supply chains. As we’ve seen in recent outbreaks, it is not enough to focus on historical incidents – cantaloupe was not known to carry Listeria; raw egg has long been a factor in Salmonella outbreaks, but it was likely the cookie dough flour that caused that 2011E.coli O157:H7 outbreak.
Risk assessment is not only critical for consumer and brand protection, it is a key aspect of the preventive provisions of FSMA. In fact, the pending rule, Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (Section 103) focuses directly on this area. As we stated in a previous newsletter, preventive controls should be tied to preventing foodborne illness, not just decreasing product contamination.
The vulnerability of not knowing and validating your entire supply chain is becoming more evident. One forward, one back may still be law for product tracking, but back to the farm is fast becoming the legal definition of responsibility. And without continuing the barrage against third-party auditors too heavily, it is a responsibility that processors and retailers are becoming leery of outsourcing, especially for high-risk products. And should these companies decide to conduct all their own supplier assessments and audits because they no longer trust outsourced audits, it could force food-industry consolidation and will fly in the face of robust programs like GFSI. I would like to bet that a Kroger or a Walmart would rather conduct 50 audits of large farms than be forced to audit 500 small farms. It is a potential that does not bode well for small suppliers, and could literally cut them out of the loop for many retailers.
In addition, whether or not such potential would come to fruition, supply chain management is specifically listed as an area for which risk-based preventive controls are required by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As noted in a previous newsletter on FSMA key provisions, as part of its food safety plan, a facility may be required to document sanitation procedures, a recall plan, a food allergen control program, supplier verification activities, and environmental sampling testing.
A few comments on a few of the impactful points he makes:
The need for tighter control of suppliers, going beyond the third party audit, especially for high risk food products. Companies have become too reliant on third party audits to evaluate suppliers. As those who may be familiar with this process know, the value of that audit all comes down to the inspector’s ability to identify critical issues within a company’s food safety system. As past recalls have shown, there are knowledgeable auditors and those that are not so. And then there has been the issues with the supplier paying for the audit, that potential trade-off between the achieving a good score and providing an accurate assessment. A third party audit is just a part of the food safety system, but not the only component. And like any food safety program, it must be managed.
The potential negative impact on small suppliers. Many retailers and foodservice companies rely on small companies to create and manufacturer private label products. There is also a movement to use local farmers to supply produce. If food companies must take a higher level of responsibility for everyone that is producing, processing, and delivering products, there can be a trend for companies to either integrate operations or for them to use few suppliers that they can better manage. This consolidation would potentially result in the use of a few larger establishments that can provide all companies needs instead of using a patchwork of smaller suppliers.
We have come to a confluence of somewhat opposing trends – the desire of consumers to have fresher foods that require less preparation and are available year round (w/ the subsequent increase in the amount of imported foods), the movement towards local foods (and smaller firms that may or may not have the required level of food safety systems in place), an ever improving foodborne-disease-detection system, and a lawsuit-driven punishment system that appears ready to go beyond the responsible party and collect retribution from the linked food chain. Is it possible to develop trust through validation and verification of the supply chain?
Today: Walmart, Kroger, Primus. Tomorrow: You?by David Acheson on June 7, 2012 in Food Safety
http://leavittpartnersblog.com/2012/06/today-walmart-kroger-primus-tomorrow-you/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=today-walmart-kroger-primus-tomorrow-you
Last week, Jensen Farms, the grower of the cantaloupe implicated in the Listeria outbreak of 2011, filed for bankruptcy. Prominently listed in the filing were lawsuits associated with the outbreak, from which 146 people were sickened and 36 died. According to the Denver Post, Jensen’s attorney said the filing should free up millions of dollars in insurance and other funds.
Foodborne illness attorney Bill Marler has filed at least 11 lawsuits and is representing almost 40 families or persons said to have been sickened or killed because of the contaminated cantaloupe. According to an article in Marler-published Food Safety News, the bankruptcy filing means that his clients “can move on to file lawsuits against companies further down the supply chain: Frontera Produce, the cantaloupe distributor; retailers such as Walmart and Kroger; and Primus Labs, the third-party auditor whose subcontractor, Bio-Food Safety, gave Jensen Farms facilities a ‘superior’ inspection rating just six days before the outbreak began.”
“Bankruptcy of Jensen Farms was a necessary prerequisite to allowing families of those who died and those who were injured to seek compensation against Frontera, Primus, suppliers and retailers,” Marler said.
If Mr. Marler is successful in bringing and winning these cases, it is telling us that someone as distant from the farm as the retailer is highly vulnerable to being sued if a farmer’s product makes someone sick and that farm then declares bankruptcy. If you sell adulterated food – or have some role in handling, distributing, or maybe even transporting anywhere along the food chain of that adulterated food, you would be liable to some extent – regardless of the cause or origination of the contamination.
What does this mean to you and the industry?
We are back to that old issue of controlling risk in the supply chain. It is becoming increasingly important that you spend time assessing and addressing risk across your product line supply chains. As we’ve seen in recent outbreaks, it is not enough to focus on historical incidents – cantaloupe was not known to carry Listeria; raw egg has long been a factor in Salmonella outbreaks, but it was likely the cookie dough flour that caused that 2011E.coli O157:H7 outbreak.
Risk assessment is not only critical for consumer and brand protection, it is a key aspect of the preventive provisions of FSMA. In fact, the pending rule, Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls (Section 103) focuses directly on this area. As we stated in a previous newsletter, preventive controls should be tied to preventing foodborne illness, not just decreasing product contamination.
The vulnerability of not knowing and validating your entire supply chain is becoming more evident. One forward, one back may still be law for product tracking, but back to the farm is fast becoming the legal definition of responsibility. And without continuing the barrage against third-party auditors too heavily, it is a responsibility that processors and retailers are becoming leery of outsourcing, especially for high-risk products. And should these companies decide to conduct all their own supplier assessments and audits because they no longer trust outsourced audits, it could force food-industry consolidation and will fly in the face of robust programs like GFSI. I would like to bet that a Kroger or a Walmart would rather conduct 50 audits of large farms than be forced to audit 500 small farms. It is a potential that does not bode well for small suppliers, and could literally cut them out of the loop for many retailers.
In addition, whether or not such potential would come to fruition, supply chain management is specifically listed as an area for which risk-based preventive controls are required by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As noted in a previous newsletter on FSMA key provisions, as part of its food safety plan, a facility may be required to document sanitation procedures, a recall plan, a food allergen control program, supplier verification activities, and environmental sampling testing.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Revisiting Third Party Food Safety Audits
Once again third party audits take heat for an outbreak, in this case, the Listeria outbreak in Jenson Farms Cantaloupes.. In the USA Today, two viewpoints are presented. Both present valid points, but there is more that can be said. Third party food safety audits provide a snapshot evaluation of the food safety system of an organization and give an assessment of whether that facility is following that food safety system. One important limitation is that audits, as currently completed, are not as good at determining the validity of that system, in other words, how well that system is actually working to make safe food. An astute auditor can see signs that the plan is valid through results of pathogen testing, through the process parameters that are set up, but there are factors that limit this.
- Auditors often cover a broad range of facilities and process types (even within the same commodity) and so it is difficult to have an in depth understanding of every process in every facility an auditor visits. They will not have the vast knowledge of a given pathogen as compared to a PhD who has studied that pathogen for years.
- Audits are often one day in duration, so there is little time to get into the nuts and bolts of the process. Audits will look at the broad systems that are in place and make sure they are being followed (such as GMP’s, supplier control, pest control, HACCP), but to look at the validity of a process can take days, especially when there is the lack of support documentation such as pathogen testing.
- In most cases, auditors are not conducting microbiological analysis of the environment or of the finished product. They may look at results that are on file, but they themselves are not swabbing surfaces or pulling product from the end of the line and sending to a qualified laboratory. As was seen in the PCA case, a company may only show select results from a less reputable laboratory. So to what degree can an auditor, in a day or so, evaluate the laboratory being used, the methods that laboratory is using, and the sampling scheme used by the plant?
- Auditors will count, in part, that the facility actually knows what it is doing. If a facility has been processing cantaloupes for years, it is easy to make the assumption they must have some clue of what they are doing. They can question why a change was made, in this case the change in process, but to make a call on the safety of that change is more difficult.
- Companies being audited do want to pass the audit. Their business depends on it. When they hire an auditor, it is less likely they will put themselves in a position to fail….and that may mean hiring someone they know who will not put them through the ringer. Indeed, this a conflict of interest. But this practice of having the supplier pay for their own audit was started years ago by the purchasing companies requiring the audits. To get out of paying for audits of every supplier, they had the idea to make the supplier pay for the audit. Sure, the customer company provides a list of audit firms or auditors from which the supplier can choose, but still, the supplier still hires that person.
Because of these limitations associated with third party audits, they are not a guarantee of product safety. Rather, they are just a part of the entire food safety system that a company uses to ensure safe food. If a company uses the fact that they passed an audit as sole reason for why they believe their food is safe, then that company probably does not have true food safety systems in place. The goal of the audit for the food company is to assess their systems and provide feedback on where improvement is needed. Each aspect of the audit is there for a reason, so food companies need to embrace the intent of the requirement, not just to throw something in place to pass the audit.
While there has been a ratcheting up of requirements through GFSI (SQF and BRC) on both what is required in audits and what is required for someone to be a qualified auditor, some of these issues still exist. Even with government based inspection, there are similar shortcomings. Audits are an important part of our food safety system, whether internal, second party, third party , or government, but the responsibility for food safety ultimately falls on the company producing the food. Food companies must use these audits as guideposts for continual improvement. Employees, managers, and just as importantly, executive management must thoroughly understand their process and product. They must challenge themselves, with the help of auditors, to ensure their food safety system has addressed all possible food safety hazards.
by Martin Bucknavage 12/1/12
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)