Chicago Firm Recalls RTE Chicken Tamale Product Due to Lack of LM Control Program

A Chicago firm is recalling cooked chicken tamale product (considered RTE) because the product was produced in a facility that did not have a Listeria control program as well as a HACCP plan for this type of product.

From the recall notice (below), it appears that this company packed raw product.  They can not begin to run cooked product without establishing a Listeria Control program to prevent contamination that can occur in the post-lethality environment (areas where product is exposed after cooking and prior to packaging).  Listeria is likely to be found in a raw meat facility.  Before someone would begin packing a cooked product, they would need to put controls in place, otherwise, it is likely to contaminate the cooked product

One could guess that the co-packer in this case, had an opportunity to sell cooked product, but did not go through the proper steps necessary, including developing a HACCP plan for that product, which would have included a hazard analysis.  In that hazard analysis, Listeria would be identified as a hazard likely to occur.  From there, the facility would put control measures in place to prevent the contamination of the fully cooked finished product.


USDA News Release
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2015/recall-014-2015-release-update
Illinois Firm Recalls Chicken Products Produced Without Adequate Ready-To-Eat HACCP Plan and a Listeria Monocytogenes Program
Class I Recall 014-2015
Health Risk: High Jan 17, 2015
Distribution List PDF
En Español

Congressional and Public Affairs  Whitney Joy   (202) 720-9113

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17, 2015 – La Guadalupana Wholesale, Inc., a Chicago, Ill., establishment, is recalling approximately 8,856 pounds of chicken tamales because they were not produced under a fully implemented Ready-To-Eat (RTE) Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan; a Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) program; and a hazard analysis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

Ohio Firm Recalls Salami Due to Inadequate Cooling.

Updated 2/4/15

An Ohio firm is recalling salami products after it was determined that the cooling step in the process appears to have had a deviation in that the product was not cooled enough. This facility operated under state jurisdiction but participated in the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program. Under CIS, state-inspected plants can operate like a federally-inspected facility by meeting specific conditions, and then ship their product in interstate commerce and internationally.

The hazard of concern for meat cooling is Clostridium perfringens.    FSIS has requirements that must be met for cooling (also called stabilization) which are defined in Appendix B.

Clostridium perfringens is a sporeforming pathogen that can exist in soil, water, food, meat, spices and vegetables.  The spores are heat resistant and can survive cooking temperatures such as process for cooking processed meat products (Dvalue at 212F ranges from 0.7 min to 38.4 min). If present in the raw materials, the numbers are very low, if present at all.  It only becomes a risk if the cooked product is temperature abused where the number of organisms reach a high number.  It divides very fast in the 90F to 115F range (can be as fast as every 10 minutes or less).

The symptoms of the illness occur within 6 to 24 hours after eating the contaminated food and these symptoms include diarrhea and acute abdominal pain.  The illness occurs when the food contains large numbers of bacteria, that once consumed, sporulate in the intestines and thus releasing the toxin.  Toxin can also be preformed in the food.

It is interesting to note that this is a cured meat, and being a cured meat, Clostridium pathogens are controlled by nitrite.

Dr. Bruce Tompkin provided a comment on this topic, which I wanted to add here:

 

This recall reminds me of the long, unfinished debate about whether C. perfringens is a significant hazard and for that reason chilling should be a CCP in the HACCP plan for cooked cured meat products.

This recall also is unfortunate because it is not likely to have any public health benefit because cured meats have not been associated with C. perfringens illness with one notable exception.

That exception is corned beef that has been cooked in water in a home or food service establishment and subsequently held at time-temperatures that permit germination and outgrowth. Long cooking in water likely reduces the salt and nitrite levels to non-inhibitory levels.

Otherwise, “there is no history of C. perfringens diarrhea associated with cured meat products since the bacillus is relatively sensitive to sodium chloride and nitrite” (ICMSF Book 5. 1996. page 116). Similar statements can be found elsewhere in the literature.

We investigated chilling deviations and conducted other research to better understand why the risk of C. perfringens illness from commercially processed RTE meat and poultry products is very low (Kalinowski et al. 2003. JFP 66:1227-1232). That research investigated both cured and non-cured products.

The publications of Jackson et al in 2011 (JFP 74:410-416 and 417-424) are among the more recent studies that lead to the conclusion that C. perfringens should not be considered a significant hazard in “conventionally cured” meats.

The risk assessment by Crouch et al in 2009 (JFP 72:1376-1384) led to the conclusions that ”Improper retail and consumer refrigeration accounted for the majority of the predicted C. perfringens illnesses, while stabilization accounted for less than 1% of illnesses. Therefore, efforts to reduce illnesses in RTE/PC meat and poultry products should focus on retail and consumer storage and preparation methods.” This agrees with experience in the UK and Australia as mentioned in Kalinowski et al. 2003.

Yes, cooked cured products are now chilled faster and more orderly but I do not recall any instance of C. perfringens illness occurring from an improperly chilled cured RTE product between 1964 when I started in the industry, 1988 when the initial chilling guidelines were implemented and 1999 when FSIS finalized its stricter chilling/stabilization regulations.

Bruce Tompkin


 FSIS Recall Notice
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2015/recall-024-2015-release
Ohio Firm Recalls Salami Products Due To Possible Temperature Abuse
Class I Recall 024-2015
Health Risk: High Jan 30, 2015
Congressional and Public Affairs Whitney Joy (202) 720-9113
 
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30, 2015 – Great Lakes Smoked Meats, a Lorain, Ohio establishment, is recalling approximately 2,863 pounds of smoked salami product, which may have experienced temperature abuse and may contain Clostridium perfringens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

USDA Proposes Salmonella and Campylobacter Performance Standards for Poultry Parts and Ground Poultry

 USDA has proposed setting performance standards for poultry processors on raw ground poultry as well as raw poultry parts (breasts, legs, breasts and wings). A performance standard for pathogens is a level of positive samples a facility can have. USDA then tests product at the facility to see whether they are in compliance. This puts pressure on the facility to put measures in place to reduce the prevalence of pathogens thus having a positive impact on safety.

USDA performance standards are in place for whole poultry, but as with the Foster Farms outbreak, numbers can increase during further processing such as cutting into parts or grinding. And these products, ground and parts, represent a big proportion of the product people buy.

These performance standards will allow some level of Salmonella and Campylobacter to still be present, but in lowering the level there, the USDA hopes to reduce the number of illnesses that occur.  That being said, it still important the people handle chicken in a way to prevent cross contamination and cook it to eliminate pathogens that may be present.

USDA News Release
 http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2015/01/0013.xml
Release No. 0013.15
Contact: Office of Communications (202)720-4623
USDA Proposes New Measures to Reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter in Poultry Products
New Standards Could Help Prevent an Estimated 50,000 Illnesses Annually

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 2015 -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today proposed new federal standards to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter in ground chicken and turkey products as well as raw chicken breasts, legs and wings. Development of these new standards is a major step in FSIS' Salmonella Action Plan, launched in December 2013 to reduce Salmonella illnesses from meat and poultry products.

Rule Delayed Requiring Labeling of Mechanically Tenderized Meat

A rule requiring the mandatory labeling of mechanically tenderized meat was delayed due to slow government action.

The rule was proposed because of the higher food safety risk associated when meat is tenderized using blades or needles.  The blades or needles can force bacteria deeper into the meat, and so this meat then needs to be cooked a little more in order to destroy those backer and thus ensure safety.  That is, you don't want to serve mechanically tenderized meat rare or medium rare....it needs to be cooked to 155F internal versus 145 F as is done for intact meat (straight cuts of steak).    Of course, many people do not know this, and cook those mechanically tenderized steaks like they would intact steaks..  Labeling would indicate to people that these steaks need to be cooked to 155F internal temperature.


Food Safety Magazine
http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/news/mandatory-labeling-for-mechanically-tenderized-meat-delayed-until-at-least-2018/
Mandatory Labeling for Mechanically Tenderized Meat Delayed Until At Least 2018
News | January 5, 2015
 By Staff

According to a final rule by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), mechanically tenderized beef products will not require special safety labels for at least another three years. The tenderization process softens the meat with tools and devices that are known to cultivate pathogens that can lead to foodborne illness.

Increasing Demand for Organic Food Challenges Certifying Inspector Capacity

USDA estimates that the double digit growth in organic food will reach $35 Billion in sales this year.

According to a report in the WSJ,  this has created challenges for the inspectors who certify those farms as organic.  There are 81 accredited agencies who certify farms and according to the report:

40% of these 81 certifiers have been flagged by the USDA for conducting incomplete inspections; 16% of certifiers failed to cite organic farms’ potential use of banned pesticides and antibiotics; and 5% failed to prevent potential commingling of organic and nonorganic products

It is  not an easy task....farms must keep accurate records in order to show compliance with numerous restrictions.  And these records must be maintained over a number of years to demonstrate that the food can be called organic.

But for the consumer, they are willing to pay more than double for organic foods.




Wall Street Journal - Business
http://www.wsj.com/articles/organic-farming-boom-stretches-certification-system-1418147586?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Organic-Farming Boom Stretches Certification System
USDA Farms Out Inspections, but Thoroughness Is Questioned
By
Caelainn Barr Dec. 9, 2014 12:53 p.m. ET


The $35 billion organic-food industry has nearly tripled in size in the past decade, challenging the Agriculture Department’s ability to monitor the more than 25,000 farms and other organizations that sell organic crops and livestock.

Bratwurst Recalled for Allergen Mislabeling Due to Soy Lecithin

Earlier this week, USDA posted a recall notice for a Pennsylvania company that was using soy lecithin as a processing aid and did not have the allergen claim on the label.  Now another Pennsylvania company has issued a recall for doing the same thing -  using a releasing agent containing soy lecithin and not claiming it on the label.

When the dog is on a scent, he's going to keep huntin'.  That is, now that USDA sees that there is an issue here that is not being properly addressed, those inspectors are going to be looking for it.  My bet is that this is not the last recall for soy lecithin mislabeling.


USDA News Release
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2014/recall-080-2014-release
Pennsylvania Firm Recalls Pork Products Due To Misbranding and Undeclared Allergens

Class II Recall 080-2014
Health Risk: Low Nov 19, 2014
Congressional and Public Affairs   Felicia Thompson   (202) 720-9113

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2014 – K. Heeps, Inc., an Allentown, Pa., establishment is recalling approximately 2,902 pounds of Bratwurst and Bangers sausage products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. The products contain soy lecithin; a releasing agent used on contact surfaces during production and is a known allergen.

USDA Proposal for Increased Record Keeping Requirements for Grinding of Raw Meat

 USDA is proposing a rule that will require official establishments and retail stores to keep records on the meat they grind.

"Official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products for sale in commerce must keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in their businesses subject to the Act (see 21 U.S.C. 642). This is because they engage in the business of preparing products of an amenable species for use as human food, and they engage in the business of buying or selling (as meat brokers, wholesalers or otherwise) in commerce products of carcasses of an amenable species. These businesses must also provide access to, and permit inspection of, these records by FSIS personnel."

The goal is to improve traceability in a product that can come from many sources.  Traceback has been an issue when there are outbreaks of E. coli STEC associated with ground meat.


Another Step Forward in Food Safety – What You Need to Know About Grinding Logs
Posted by Marie Bucko, USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Public Affairs Specialist, on July 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM -

http://blogs.usda.gov/2014/07/16/another-step-forward-in-food-safety-what-you-need-to-know-about-grinding-logs/


The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing a requirement for official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products to keep detailed and in-depth log record systems.

The proposed grinding log rule is now available for public review at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/proposed-rules.

What are the benefits?

Additional egg products recalled in light of FSIS investigation

 Updated 4/1/14

USDA issued a public health alert for egg products due to the fact they were unfit for human consumption. This comes as FSIS investigates a recall that occurred by the Washington state company, Nutriom for a recall they had last month.

It has come to light in this notice that "FSIS issued the original recall because the company allegedly recorded false laboratory results. The company allegedly produced negative laboratory results for Salmonella when the results were actually positive, or reported that sampling had occurred when, in fact, no microbial testing was performed". 

This recall expands the previous recall by an additional 118,500 lbs from the original 226,710 lbs. However, the company refused to recall the additional amount and so now FSIS will remove it.

Based upon the letter written by Nutriom in response to the USDA, Nutriom disagreed with the USDA. Further, it indicates the record keeping irregularities were the responsibility of one individual who is no longer with the company. 

So it appears from that statement that this is not a system wide issue, but rather a rouge employee issue.

Nutriom produces a dried egg product using a new technology. Salmonella is an issue in egg products and in dried products, so it is important for the process to be sufficient to rid the eggs of pathogens like Salmonella, but it is also important to prevent recontamination of the eggs in the post process environment. Salmonella can survive in dry products and dry process environments for long periods of time, and so can become a environmental contaminate if not controlled.

Nutriom LLC Response to USDA-FSIS Announcement
Nutriom products found to be safe by USDA-FSIS laboratory. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11713376.htm

Lacey, WA (PRWEB) March 29, 2014

Nutriom LLC is a small, family-owned and operated company, founded by an immigrant who came to this country more than 30 years ago looking for opportunity. Nutriom has developed a new technology for dehydrating eggs using its unique, patent-pending drying technology. Nutriom produces a dehydrated egg (“Egg Crystals™”) that when mixed with water and cooked, functions and tastes just like fresh eggs. It is 100% all-natural, pure egg with no added chemicals or preservatives.

Is Produce Safe from Pesticides? USDA Releases Pesticide Residue Testing Data

The USDA released its annual pesticide residue testing data http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=stelprdc5106521 for 2012.  In the report, over 99% of the products sampled had results that were within EPA tolerances.

Of course, 99.47% is not 100%, and there were a few samples that were above the established tolerance.    From a blog by Steve Savage who took the time to analyze the few high results.

The only crops with any significant number of above-tolerance detections were snap peas (32 from among 743 samples) and cherry tomatoes (24 from among 744 samples). However, even these unusual incidences were not enough above tolerance to be of major concern. For the snap peas, 97% of the samples with those higher detections were imported either from Guatemala, Peru or Mexico. For the cherry tomatoes, 83% of the above-tolerance samples came from Mexico. If the "group project" was divided into a US farmers team and a importers team, their respective "scores" would be 99.88% and 98.76% - different, but both still A+ grades.

 It is important to note that the tolerance levels that are set have a 100X or so safety factor.

So traditional produce purchased from your supermarket is safe (extremely low risk).  Of course, there are those who will continue to pay more for 'organic'.  Is it worth the added price?  This data suggests it is not. 

One issue I have is that USDA should provide a discussion of 'out of tolerance' samples in their report rather than just glossing it over.  They did issue "What Consumer Should Know".
 

 

What Consumers Should Know

2012 Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091057

 

 

• This PDP data shows that overall pesticide residues found on foods tested are at levels below the tolerances established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pose no safety concern.
• Each year, USDA and EPA work together to identify foods to be tested on a rotating basis. In 2012, surveys were conducted on a variety of foods including fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, wheat, butter, baby food, and water.
• PDP data reflect actual residues present in food grown in various regions of the U.S. and overseas.
• EPA makes a safety evaluation for pesticides considering all possible routes of exposure through food, water, and home environments when setting the maximum residue (tolerance) level of pesticide that can remain in or on foods.
• Before a pesticide is available for use in the U.S., the EPA must determine that it will not pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.

Rancho Meat recall leading to a cascade of recalls?

In light of the recall of meat produced by Rancho Feeding Corp, now comes the recalls of the products that were made with the meat from that facility.    Nestle is recalling 2 brands of Hot Pockets.  In Canada, beef and cheese taquitos were recalled (they were manufactured by a Californian processor).

 One has to hope that these downstream recalls are tied to a real safety issue.  To date, we have not seen any statement issued from USDA outside of the fact that  the meat was produced without inspection.  While that should not have happened, it is unclear at this point whether any product is actually harmful.

As for highly processed foods like Hot Pockets, heat treatment of the filling would have eliminated most all hazards, especially those of most concern, pathogens such as E. coli STEC and Salmonella.  (What?  Hot Pockets are highly processed?)

CNN
USDA closes school lunch supplier; some Hot Pockets recalled
By Ed Payne and Chandler Friedman, CNN
updated 3:30 PM EST, Wed February 19, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/health/hot-pockets-recall/
CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has withdrawn its inspectors and suspended operations at a California meat company because of "insanitary conditions at the establishment," the department's Food Safety and Inspection Service said Wednesday.

The Central Valley Meat Co. in Hanford, California, supplies beef for federal school nutrition programs. In 2011, it provided nearly 21 million pounds of beef, or nearly 16% of the supply.

"The plant's suspension will be lifted once we receive adequate assurances of corrective action," a USDA statement said.

Meanwhile, Nestlé USA has issued a recall of two varieties of Philly Steak and Cheese Hot Pockets because they may contain meat the department has already recalled.

The two brands are Hot Pockets brand Philly Steak and Cheese in three different pack sizes, and Hot Pockets brand Croissant Crust Philly Steak and Cheese in the two-pack box.

For the exact batch code, please check this release.

Earlier, the USDA had recalled more than 8.7 million pounds of meat from the Rancho Feeding Corp. because it "processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection."

No illnesses have been reported in relation to the recall.

California company recalls meat that was produced without inspection

 A California meat processor is recalling meat after a USDA investigation found that the company had processed meat without inspection.  A second investigation was conducted.  USDA indicated that the meat was “unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food”.  The company is recalling all the meat produced in 2013, which is a reported 8.7 million pounds.  The company has ceased operations and many local ranchers fear that the processing facility will go out of business, forcing them to find other ways of handling their cattle.

 

USDA News Relase

California Firm Recalls Unwholesome Meat Products Produced Without the Benefit of Full Inspection

Class I Recall 013-2014 (UPDATE)

Health Risk: High Feb 18, 2014

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18, 2014 – Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection. Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

 

The following Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall:

• Beef Carcasses” (wholesale and custom sales only)
• 2 per box "Beef (Market) Heads" (retail only)
• 4-gallons per box "Beef Blood" (wholesale only)
• 20-lb. boxes of “Beef Oxtail”
• 30-lb. boxes of “Beef Cheeks”
• 30-lb. boxes of " Beef Lips"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Omasum"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripas"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Mountain Oysters"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Sweet Breads”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Liver”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Tripe”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Tongue”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Cuts"\
• 40-lb. boxes of "Veal Bones"
• 50-lb. boxes of “Beef Feet”
• 50-lb. boxes of “Beef Hearts”
• 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Trim"

 

Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each box bears the case code number ending in “3” or “4.” The products were produced Jan. 1, 2013 through Jan. 7, 2014 and shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments nationwide.

 

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider.

 

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

 

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the recall can contact the plant’s Quality Control manager, Scott Parks, at (707) 762-6651.

 

Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Update: Second investigation launched into Rancho Feeding Corp.
By ROBERT DIGITALE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20140211/COMMUNITY/140219907/-1/community?p=1&tc=pg

Published: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 4:50 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 4:50 p.m.

A second office within the US Department of Agriculture has begun investigating a Petaluma slaughterhouse that has temporarily ceased operations while recalling a year's worth of processed beef, the agency reported Tuesday.


“USDA's Office of the Inspector General is conducting an ongoing investigation into Rancho Feeding Corporation,” said a statement released Tuesday by the agency's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The statement noted that the administrator over the inspection service had separately “directed an immediate and thorough examination of the firm's practices, procedures and management.”

The 39-word statement was the most detailed to date on the agency's investigation of the North Bay's last remaining beef processing facility.

On Saturday the USDA announced that Rancho had initiated a recall of 8.7 million pounds of beef, essentially all the meat the company had processed in 2013.

In its news release, the agency asserted that Rancho “processed diseased and unsound animals” without a full inspection. The meat products are “unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food” and must be removed from commerce.

There are no reports of anyone becoming ill after eating the beef.

Robert Singleton, who owns Rancho with partner Jesse “Babe” Amaral, on Monday confirmed the company had voluntarily ceased processing and was compiling a list of affected companies. Singleton said the company undertook the recall out of “an abundance of caution” but declined comment on the government's allegations.

Other than the news release Saturday and the statement on Tuesday, officials with the US Department of Agriculture have declined to elaborate on the underlying reasons for the recall or the breadth of their investigation.

The recall affects all beef processed at Rancho between Jan. 1, 2013, and Jan. 7, 2014, a USDA spokesman said. The carcasses and other parts, commonly referred to as offal, were shipped to retailers and distributors in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.

Last month the USDA announced that Rancho was recalling 41,683 pounds of meat produced on Jan. 8. The agency asserted that the meat didn't receive a full federal inspection.

You can reach Staff Writer Robert Digitale at 521-5285 or robert.digitale@pressdemocrat.com.

FOOD BUSINESS NEWS

California meat processor recalling a year’s production 

2/10/2014 - by Keith Nunes

http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Food_Safety_News/2014/02/California_meat_processor_reca.aspx?ID={39E6BB5C-DD5F-4312-8CB2-0F1768DF1FA3}

PETALUMA, CALIF. — Rancho Feeding Corp., a small California meat processor, is recalling all beef products processed between Jan. 1, 2013, to Jan. 7, 2014. The total amount is estimated to be in the range of 8.7 million lbs of product.

The recalled products were distributed to California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recall was initiated because an investigation discovered the beef was processed without “the full benefit” federal inspection. Meat and poultry products that are shipped across state lines in the U.S. must be produced under federal inspection.

On Jan. 13, Rancho Feeding Corp. initiated a recall of 41,000 lbs of meat products that were produced without federal inspection on Jan. 8. A subsequent investigation by the F.S.I.S. revealed the issue to be much larger.

No illnesses have been associated with the recalled products, according to the F.S.I.S.

Costco issuing a recall for cooked Foster Farms chicken

Costco is recalling over 20,000 units of rotisserie cooked chicken product because the product may have been connected to some of the illnesses related to the Foster Farms Salmonella outbreak. While Costco reports to cook chicken to 180ºF, investigators are suggesting that cross contamination may be the issue.

The number of illnesses related to Foster Farms contaminated with Salmonella is now reported to be 317 cases Foster Farms has not yet conducted a recall. Some are predicting that this may face higher liabilities due to their inaction. It has already had an impact on their sales. FSIS did issue an FAQ (included below), but it would have been nice if they specifically answered the question why they did not request a recall.

This will be an interesting case to follow in that Costco has issued a recall, but Foster Farms has not.


USDA News Release

California Wholesale Store Recalls Rotisserie Chicken Products Due To Possible Salmonella Contamination

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2013/recall-058-2013-expanded

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2013 – Costco’s El Camino Real store in San Francisco, Calif., is recalling an additional 14,093 units of rotisserie chicken products that may be contaminated with a strain of Salmonella, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today. This is in addition to the 9,043 units that were recalled on Oct. 12.

Alert issued on raw chicken after 278 cases of salmonellosis

FSIS issued a public health alert on Foster Farm raw chicken after the chicken had been associated with 278 cases of salmonellosis. A recall was not issued in that FSIS is unable to link the illnesses to a specific product and a specific production period. Products were distributed on the west coast (CA, WA, and OR), with illnesses in some 18 sates.

 

Of course, properly cooking chicken (to 165ºF) as well as handling in a way that would prevent cross contamination would prevent foodborne illness. But we cannot blame the consumer. Reading through the comments section of each of news outlet’s articles, we can find a number of different people to blame.

• Congress - for furloughing government workers (although USDA inspectors are still on the job and this outbreak began months ago.
• Meat eaters – if people didn’t eat meat, they wouldn’t get Salmonella from chickens, except if we kept the chickens as pets.
• USDA – If they did their job, Salmonella would simply not exist on chickens. Although USDA has worked with processors for years, dropping the incident rate over the past few decades, Salmonella is still present although at a much lower incident rate (See graph below).
• The Industrial Processor – growing chicken in cramp quarters, washing them in chlorine baths, ,etc, is bound to have more Salmonella than that raised by the local farmers. Although work done here at Penn State found that it is probably not the case. (Story below or link at http://news.psu.edu/story/281316/2013/07/11/research/whole-chickens-farmers-markets-may-have-more-pathogenic-bacteria)

 Certainly, poultry processors do want to ensure that the levels of Salmonella are as low as possible to help ensure that small mistakes made by consumers is less likely to result in foodborne illness.

 

USDA News Release

 FSIS Issues Public Health Alert for Chicken Products Produced at Three Foster Farms Facilities

 

Proposed rule for labeling of injected meat

USDA has issued a proposed rule that would require the label ‘mechanically tenderized” on labels of raw or partially cooked needle or blade tenderized beef. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2008-0017.pdf

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require the use of the descriptive designation ‘‘mechanically tenderized’’ on the labels of raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with marinade or solution, unless such products are destined to be fully cooked at an official establishment. Beef products that have been needle- or blade-tenderized are referred to as ‘‘mechanically tenderized’’ products.

Meat products that are needle injected or blade tenderized should be cooked to a higher temperature than intact beef because in the process of injecting or blade tenderizing (as in chopped steak), the needles or blades can push pathogenic bacteria deep into the meat. So like ground beef, the heat has to penetrate further into the meat to kill the bacteria.

Processors inject meat in some cases when they want to marinade the product, or in other cases when they have a cheaper cut of meat that they want to inject solution to help the meat retain more moisture during cooking. Blade tenderizing is done to help break the connective tissue in the meat to make it easier to chew. Unfortunately, too many people cook this meat rare or medium rare, just like regular cuts of steak. But for safety, consumers should cook this type of meat to an internal temperature of 160 F.*(155 F for foodservice.) By requiring meat to be labeled as mechanically tenderized, and by having validated cooking instructions, it is more likely that this meat will be identified as meat that should be cooked to a higher temperature.

*or other temperature that is scientifically validated by the processor.

USDA and EPA Launch U.S. Food Waste Challenge

USDA in conjunction with EPA is launching a new initiative to reduce food waste. They estimate that food waste is roughly 30 to 40 percent of the US Food Supply. Wasted food happens at every part of the food chain, including retail, foodservice, and the consumer. According to the release – “USDA will also work with industry to increase donations from imported produce that does not meet quality standards, streamline procedures for donating wholesome misbranded meat and poultry products, update U.S. food loss estimates at the retail level, and pilot-test a meat-composting program to reduce the amount of meat being sent to landfills from food safety inspection labs.”

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2013/06/0112.xml&contentidonly=true

FDA / USDA release Food Defense Plan Builder

FDA / USDA released a Food Defense Plan Builder – This is a downloadable program for developing a Food Defense Plan. It was  found to be very easy to use. Once you enter in your data, it prints off a nice little food defense plan.   It is actually worth giving it a shot.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodDefense/ToolsEducationalMaterials/ucm349888.htm

Warehouse supevisor faces 5 yrs in prison for falsifying food safety records

A warehouse supervisor may face up to 5 years in prison and a 250,000 fine for falsifying temperature records on an exported frozen chicken. That is a huge price to pay for a guy who probably did not benefit greatly from pushing the shipment before it was ready…..probably too much in a hurry or just didn’t care. Was it the lack of training, or did his managers put expectation in the wrong place – speed instead of safety? Clearly a lack of understanding on the impact of food safety deviations and the severity of punishment on falsifying documentation as related to international agreements.

Can you imagine having to tell your kids you won’t be coming home for 5 years because you will be spending time in the big house with a cell mate named Butch….all for failing to do the job correctly.



Man admits conspiracy in poultry exports to Russia from PascagoulaPublished: May 22, 2013
http://www.sunherald.com/2013/05/22/4683370/man-admits-conspiracy-in-poultry.html
2 other Jackson County men face trial

By ROBIN FITZGERALD — rfitzgerald@sunherald.com

GULFPORT -- An Ocean Springs man has admitted conspiring to violate a trade agreement with Russia by authorizing the export of poultry at higher temperatures than required.

Terry White, 38, was a warehouse supervisor for Gulf Coast Cold Storage in 2009 when he directed others to falsify blast-freezer records and restack loads of poultry to disguise portions considered too "hot" to load onto ships.

The business is a tenant at the Port of Pascagoula.

White accepted a plea agreement Tuesday to conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. The maximum penalty is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

He avoided trial on four other charges with additional penalties of up to 18 years in prison and fines of $760,000.

Listeria Recalls - Could This Be the Story of Jason?

Within the week, there were two recalls, both involving Listeria contamination of cooked meat products that were discovered through testing. So luckily, no illnesses were reported. One is an FDA recall involving chicken salad sandwiches sold at retail. The other is a USDA recall involving meat strips that were sold in bulk to be used as ingredients.  

The process for both products would have entail post -process handling, so both would be at risk for Listeria contamination. The difference is that the sandwiches would be shipped refrigerated, allowing some time for growth to occur, although there is a limited shelf-life on the product. The other is a frozen product, so during the time that product is frozen, Listeria would not grow. The risk associated with this product would be impacted on how the further manufacturer used that product. Of course, if they further cook the product, perhaps as part of a BBQ meat product, it would eliminate the Listeria risk. However, if they made it into chicken salad and shipped it in a refrigerated state to retail stores, it would be similar to the FDA recalled product.

Once an operation has found they have a Listeria contamination issue, it is important that those companies do extensive cleaning and sanitizing that is verified by heavy monitoring. Too often, companies jump back into production without eliminating the true source of contamination. In some cases, they don’t find it in testing completed on non-production swabs and think they are good to go. However, once product starts to roll through the process, Listeria reemerges. The source of Listeria was hidden well within the bowls of the equipment, and only once product is flowing through for hours or even days, does the Listeria make its way back out onto the food contact surfaces and ultimately the product.  

Listeria is sort of like Jason, the scary dude in the hockey mask featured in in those horror movies. In this movie, after the screaming girl shoots him a zillion times and he falls off the two-story roof, the distraught girl, laying there for what seems to be an eternity, finally gets the nerve to look. However, looking down, she realizes Jason is not there on the ground. Slowly turning around, she screeches as she sees that Jason was standing right behind her with a machete in his hand. As you are watching the flick, you wonder, why did she not verify that he was dead sooner.  So yeah, Jason is like Listeria, you are just never able to kill it and he continues to scare the heck out of you. So don’t be the screaming girl, use a rocket-launcher instead of a handgun and check well and often that he is not standing behind you. And never assume he is really dead.

KNOTT'S FINE FOODS RECALLS CHICKEN SALAD SANDWICHES BECAUSE OF POSSIBLE HEALTH RISK
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm336282.htm?source=govdelivery

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - January 21, 2013 - Knott's Fine Foods, Inc. of Paris, TN, is voluntarily recalling its 3 ounce Chicken Salad Sandwiches with an expiration date of 1/29/13 and earlier because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

USDA Issues Alert for Meat Products from Canadian Firm XL Foods

USDA is expanding the health alert for beef products produced by a Canadian firm, XL foods. This product may have made its way to as many as 30 states and to a number of different retailers including Walmart and Safeway.

 The issue began as product samples tested at the US border were found to be E. coli O157:H7 positive. Increased testing by the US resulted in more positives and this resulted in a CFIA investigation followed by the plant recalling over 250 products.

 Also this week, steaks produced at the XL plant have been linked to 4 cases of E. coli infection in Canada. The XL steak product was purchased from Costco in Edmonton. It is interesting to note that the products were tenderized in-store by Costco. Tenderization, of course, will serve to drive any E. coli located on the surface of the steak down into the interior of the steak. Unfortunately, many people cook tenderized steaks as they would regular steaks, towards the rarer side. When cooked this way, there may be insufficient heat to destroy E. coli that had been pushed into the interior portion of the meat during tenderization. Tenderized steaks should be cooked to the same temperature as hamburger (consumer 160F, foodservice 155F).

While the CFIA has shut down the XL plant, there is criticism of the reaction time from when the first positive was seen until the time the recall took place – about 12 days. Another issue was the inaction of the plant during what is considered a high event period – a high event period is a time when higher levels of E. coli are found.


USDA News Release
FSIS Expands Public Health Alert for Imported Canadian Beef from XL Foodshttp://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_092812_01/index.asp

WASHINGTON, September 28, 2012 – The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is expanding the Public Health Alert for XL Foods (Canadian Establishment 038) to include all beef and beef products produced on August 24, 27, 28, 29 and September 5. FSIS was notified this evening that XL Foods has expanded their recall to include all beef and beef products produced on the above dates.

Information for Consumers

Because FSIS has been informed that all beef and beef products produced on the above dates are being recalled by XL Foods, the Agency is using this public health alert to make the public aware that these products are considered adulterated and should be returned to the place of purchase or destroyed. Products subject to the recall include, but are not limited to, steaks, roasts, mechanically tenderized steaks and roasts, and ground beef.

Additional information for consumers and an updated retail distribution list are posted on FSIS' website at www.fsis.usda.gov/
  

Organic Foods - No Support for Claims that it is More Healthy Compared to Convential Foods

There are many reasons people buy organic foods, but as a recent research article conducted by Stanford researchers show, the arguement that organic foods are more healthy may not be a valid one.  The research is based upon examination of  some 200 peer-reviewed studies.

I don't think that NPR article below was looking for a fight, they just cited this research study.  However, you might think otherwise after looking at the comment section.

The other arguement for people using organic is that it is safer.  Clearly, organic food has the same type of food safety issues as conventional food. 

One of the other primary determinants is pesticide residues on conventional produce.  USDA has stated that this is not a concern. (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5049944 ).

People have the right to choose whatever type of foods they want.  Indeed it may be better for the environment, or there may be less long term impact on someone's body (although that is yet to be shown).  However, it is important that people acknowledge the research that has been done and factor this into thier risk determination.  Unfortunately, we go to great lenghts to avoid low risk issues (organic versus conventional), but overlook high risk practices (such as sunbathing).
Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organic-food-may-not-be-healthier-for-you?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120904

Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.

But if you're thinking that organic produce will help you stay healthier, a new finding may come as a surprise. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods.

"There's a definite lack of evidence," says researcher Crystal Smith-Spangler at Stanford University School of Medicine, especially when it comes to studies of people.

She and her colleagues collected 200 peer-reviewed studies that examined differences between organic and conventional food, or the people who eat it.

A few of these studies followed people who were eating either organic or conventional food and looked for evidence that the choice made a difference in their health.

One study, for instance, looked at whether eating organic food while pregnant would influence the likelihood of eczema and other allergic conditions among children, and another looked at whether eating organic meat would influence the risk of a Campylobacter infection, a bacterial food-borne illness. When the researchers looked at the body of evidence, they found no clear benefits. But they say more research is needed.

It's important to note, though, that such studies have a really hard time uncovering subtle effects of our environment, or what we eat, on our health. Too many other powerful influences get in the way. Also, these studies only followed people for a very short time — about two years or less. That's hardly enough time to document any particular health benefit.

Most of the studies included in this collection looked at the food itself — the nutrients that it contained as well as levels of pesticide residues or harmful bacteria.

As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.

Some previous studies have looked at specific organic foods and found that they contain higher levels of important nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals. We've reported on one particularly ambitious experiment, which is supposed to go on for a hundred years, comparing plots of organic and conventional tomatoes. After 10 years, the researchers found that tomatoes raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain antioxidant compounds.

But this is one study of one vegetable in one field. And when the Stanford researchers looked at their broad array of studies, which included lots of different crops in different situations, they found no such broad pattern.

Here's the basic reason: When it comes to their nutritional quality, vegetables vary enormously, and that's true whether they are organic or conventional. One carrot in the grocery store, for instance, may have two or three times more beta carotene (which gives us vitamin A) than its neighbor. That's due to all kinds of things: differences in the genetic makeup of different varieties, the ripeness of the produce when it was picked, even the weather.

So there really are vegetables that are more nutritious than others, but the dividing line between them isn't whether or not they are organic. "You can't use organic as your sole criteria for judging nutritional quality," says Smith-Spangler.

Of course, people may have other reasons for buying organic food. It's a different style of agriculture. Organic farmers often control pests by growing a greater variety of crops. They increase the fertility of their fields through nitrogen-fixing plants, or by adding compost instead of applying synthetic fertilizer.

That can bring environmental benefits, such as more diverse insect life in the field or less fertilizer runoff into neighboring streams. But such methods also cost money. That's part of what you are buying when you buy organic.

So if you really want to find the most nutritious vegetables, and the organic label won't take you there, what will?

At the moment, unfortunately, there isn't a good guide. But a lot of scientists are working on it.

They're measuring nutrient levels in all kinds of crops, and discovering some surprising things, as The Salt reported last week — such as supernutritious microgreens. They're trying to breed new varieties of crops that yield not a bigger harvest but a more nutrient-rich harvest.

The problem is, farmers still get paid by the pound, not by the vitamin. And consumers buy their food the same way. What this really requires is a whole new food system that can track those extra-nutritious crops from farmer's field to consumer's shopping basket.

Maybe, down the road, you will actually see signs in the supermarket that advertise, for instance, iron-rich beans. Maybe they'd be organic, or maybe not.