CDC provided an outbreak report from a June of 2018 incident where three women suffered botulinum poisoning after eating homemade potato salad using improperly processed home-canned peas.
According to the report, the woman's freezer had malfunctioned and so decided to rescue the commercially produced frozen peas by canning them. HOWEVER, Instead of using a pressure canner, she decided to follow a peach recipe that utilizes a water bath canner, and simply substitute the peas for peaches. When a jar lost vacuum, she refrigerated it and used that to make the potato salad.
From the report, "The patient who prepared the home-canned peas was a novice home canner. She used a peach preserves recipe with a boiling water technique, replacing the peaches with frozen vegetables. The patient was unaware that low-acid foods (e.g., vegetables) must be canned in a pressure canner rather than a boiling water canner to eliminate C. botulinum spores (1). After the jars cooled, the patient correctly checked for jar seal. One of the jars of peas was not sealed, so the patient covered and refrigerated it, and the family consumed the peas in the potato salad."
The women who had arrived at a hospital 4 hours earlier for evaluation for acute nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, slurred speech, ptosis, thick-feeling tongue, and shortness of breath. Two patients developed respiratory failure, requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation in the emergency department, and the third patient was intubated at 7 p.m. that evening. The combination of cranial nerve palsies and respiratory failure in multiple patients suggested botulism, a paralytic illness caused by botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT), most commonly produced by Clostridium botulinum.
As we know, when you have low acid foods, they must be pressure canned in order to destroy any Clostridium botulinum spores. In peaches, the acidity is high / ph is low (<4.6) and that prevents the spores from growing, so a high heat treatment is needed. In peas, a low acid food, the acidity is low and the pH is high (>4.6). In this product, the spores survived the milder heat treatment used in the water bath canning, and when the product cooled down, the spores germinated and grew in the peas, producing the deadly neurotoxin.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6810a5.htm?s_cid=mm6810a5_e
Notes from the Field: Botulism Outbreak Associated with Home-Canned Peas — New York City, 2018
Weekly / March 15, 2019 / 68(10);251–252
Friday, March 15, 2019
Ground Turkey Recalled After Linked to 5 Cases of Salmonella Infection
Butterball, LLC, a Mount Olive, N.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 78,164 pounds of raw ground turkey products that may be contaminated with Salmonella Schwarzengrund. FSIS, CDC, and Wisconsin state agencies have been investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Schwarzengrund illnesses involving 5 case patients from 2 states
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-030-2019-release
Butterball LLC Recalls Turkey Products Due to Possible Salmonella Schwarzengrund Contamination
Class I Recall
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-030-2019-release
Butterball LLC Recalls Turkey Products Due to Possible Salmonella Schwarzengrund Contamination
Class I Recall
030-2019
Health Risk: High
Health Risk: High
Mar 13, 2019
Monday, March 11, 2019
This Week in Mislabeled Products for Week Ending March 9, 2019
Beef Ravioli Labeled as Chicken with Rice Conagra Brands, Inc., a Milton, Pa. establishment, is recalling approximately 2,871 pounds of chicken and rice products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens - the products may contain milk and wheat, known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. The problem was discovered by the firm after receiving consumer complaints that bowls of microwave beef ravioli were mislabeled as “chicken with rice & vegetables.”
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-025-2019-release
Conagra Brands, Inc. Recalls Chicken and Rice Products Due To Misbranding and Undeclared Allergens
Class I Recall
025-2019
Health Risk:High
Mar 9, 2019
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-025-2019-release
Conagra Brands, Inc. Recalls Chicken and Rice Products Due To Misbranding and Undeclared Allergens
Class I Recall
025-2019
Health Risk:High
Mar 9, 2019
Grocery Stores Report Recall of Flour Due to Potential Salmonella Contamination
According to news reports, two grocery chains are recalling Pillsbury flour in 5lb bags for potential Salmonella contamination. The chains, Publix and Winn Dixie are both in the Southeast US.
FDA has not yet posted a recall on their website, so there is limited information.
Salmonella can be found in flour and becomes an issue when items are undercooked or not cooked (like raw cookie dough) or there is cross contamination in the kitchen when the contaminated flour gets onto ready-to-eat food items.
http://www.fox13news.com/consumer/publix-winn-dixie-recalls-pillsbury-flour-due-to-salmonella-concern
Publix, Winn-Dixie recalls Pillsbury flour due to salmonella concern
By FOX 13 News staff
Posted Mar 11 2019 05:56AM EDT
Updated Mar 11 2019 07:16AM EDT
FDA has not yet posted a recall on their website, so there is limited information.
Salmonella can be found in flour and becomes an issue when items are undercooked or not cooked (like raw cookie dough) or there is cross contamination in the kitchen when the contaminated flour gets onto ready-to-eat food items.
http://www.fox13news.com/consumer/publix-winn-dixie-recalls-pillsbury-flour-due-to-salmonella-concern
Publix, Winn-Dixie recalls Pillsbury flour due to salmonella concern
By FOX 13 News staff
Posted Mar 11 2019 05:56AM EDT
Updated Mar 11 2019 07:16AM EDT
Saturday, March 9, 2019
One Lot of Organic Bean Sprouts Recalled for Listeria
A Florida establishment is voluntarily recalling Organic Bean Sprouts because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, This recall was issued after the Florida Department of Agriculture pulled a sample from a store shelf and found Listeria (we assume). Product was shipped to Whole Foods Markets in Florida and Freedom Fresh (a Miami distributor) on February 18, 2019 and had a sell by date of February 28, 2019, so unlikely to be in Marketplace.
Like many other recalls involving Listeria where only the tested positive lot is recalled, these recalls are often expanded as it is discovered that the facility did not have adequate controls in place. For ensuring public health, recalls of these natures should initially begin with a broad recall unless the company can show that they have had adequate controls in place. Hard to say in this case, unless over this recall is expanded over the next week.
Fullei Fresh Recalls Organic Bean Sprouts Because of Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release
March 8, 2019
Like many other recalls involving Listeria where only the tested positive lot is recalled, these recalls are often expanded as it is discovered that the facility did not have adequate controls in place. For ensuring public health, recalls of these natures should initially begin with a broad recall unless the company can show that they have had adequate controls in place. Hard to say in this case, unless over this recall is expanded over the next week.
Fullei Fresh Recalls Organic Bean Sprouts Because of Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release
March 8, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
FDA Release Guidance on Food Defense - Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration
The FDA published a draft guidance for food defense titled Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration: Guidance for Industry in support of the Prevention of Intentional Adulteration rule. The draft guidance provides ways to meet the requirements in the rule specifically conducting the vulnerability assessment and putting mitigation strategies in place for ‘actionable process steps’ or APS. These APS are defined as “a point, step, or procedure in a food process where a significant vulnerability exists and at which mitigation strategies can be applied and are essential to significantly minimize or prevent the significant vulnerability”.
To summarize the 159 page document - a Food Defense Plan is essentially conducting a HACCP type of analysis where the goal is to find steps in the process where significant vulnerability exists and to put in measures, or the mitigation strategies’ to reduce the vulnerabilities. These vulnerable points are points where there is access to product where the product can then be contaminated.
There is flexibility in how one conducts a vulnerability assessment, but the guidance provides some basic ways. The elements that must be considered include 1) the potential public health impact (e.g., severity and scale) if a contaminant were added, 2) the degree of physical access to the product; and 3) the ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product. The analysis must consider an attack by an insider, a person working in the company. The written assessment must document why each step was considered, or not considered, an APS.
For steps designated as an APS, mitigation strategies are put in place. These strategies may limit access to the step, or may reduce the likelihood that someone can contaminate product at that step. Like critical controls points, each mitigation strategy must have monitoring, verification, and corrective action.
While many may ask about facility wide measures – items such as exterior fencing, employee access to the facility and such – these are not included within the plan unless they can be tailored to impact a specific Actionable Process Step. Sure, they are important, but many have these in place already for other purposes and in reality, they are harder for regulators to regulate.
To summarize the 159 page document - a Food Defense Plan is essentially conducting a HACCP type of analysis where the goal is to find steps in the process where significant vulnerability exists and to put in measures, or the mitigation strategies’ to reduce the vulnerabilities. These vulnerable points are points where there is access to product where the product can then be contaminated.
There is flexibility in how one conducts a vulnerability assessment, but the guidance provides some basic ways. The elements that must be considered include 1) the potential public health impact (e.g., severity and scale) if a contaminant were added, 2) the degree of physical access to the product; and 3) the ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product. The analysis must consider an attack by an insider, a person working in the company. The written assessment must document why each step was considered, or not considered, an APS.
For steps designated as an APS, mitigation strategies are put in place. These strategies may limit access to the step, or may reduce the likelihood that someone can contaminate product at that step. Like critical controls points, each mitigation strategy must have monitoring, verification, and corrective action.
While many may ask about facility wide measures – items such as exterior fencing, employee access to the facility and such – these are not included within the plan unless they can be tailored to impact a specific Actionable Process Step. Sure, they are important, but many have these in place already for other purposes and in reality, they are harder for regulators to regulate.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
USDA Issuing Guidelines to Increase Attention to Foreign Material Complaints
Over the past few years, food companies, specifically meat and poultry processors, have issued a large number of recalls related to foreign objects. Now USDA is issuing guidelines for food companies to respond more aggressively with foreign material complaints. The USDA wants "food makers to start internal investigations when they receive customer complaints and to notify the government within 24 hours if contaminated products are in the marketplace".
Are foreign material issues an increasing issue? I would argue that it is not. Certainly the visibility of these issues is new. Within the past few years, the Reportable Food Registry and Consumer Complaint portals were introduced and the use has increased. So while in the past, consumer complaints for foreign materials were received by companies and handled internally without much federal intervention. Recalls were issued for serious foreign material issues. What has changed isn't as much there are more foreign material issues, but USDA is paying close attention. And much of this started as consumers were able to complain directly to USDA, and with that, inspectors began paying more attention to foreign material issues. As issues were seen within the complaint records, more recalls were issued.
Is a more aggressive response prudent? Not being involved directly in these investigations, it is difficult to know exactly. From the recall notices, it appears that many recalls are issued after one complaint. But what did the investigation show? It is important that complaints are well investigated before wasting resources on a recall. I have seen where complaints were made by consumers in order to get a replacement product (free product). There were other cases where the consumer improperly cut the package with a part of that package unknowingly falling into the product only to be viewed by the consumer as a foreign object. People have assumed the food was a source of a foreign object when that food was used in a recipe.
Perhaps some of us come from a different era that when we found a piece of plastic in a food item, we accepted that as 'something that can happen', and threw the piece of plastic out. Not saying that is right and that food companies should do a better job, but if no injury than no foul.
We are already seeing people pay less heed to recalls. As we add more and more recalls to the weekly list, it is bound to increase the consumer ambivalence. So at the very least, time should be allowed for an investigation and companies should be allowed input on the determination of whether the recall is necessitated. In the end, they will pay for the real issues.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-food-safety-guidelines-expected-after-spike-meat-poultry-recalls-n979161
New food safety guidelines expected after spike in meat and poultry recalls
More food prepared by machines contributes to more parts breaking off and contaminating food, consumer advocates say.
March 4, 2019, 5:53 PM EST
By Reuters
Are foreign material issues an increasing issue? I would argue that it is not. Certainly the visibility of these issues is new. Within the past few years, the Reportable Food Registry and Consumer Complaint portals were introduced and the use has increased. So while in the past, consumer complaints for foreign materials were received by companies and handled internally without much federal intervention. Recalls were issued for serious foreign material issues. What has changed isn't as much there are more foreign material issues, but USDA is paying close attention. And much of this started as consumers were able to complain directly to USDA, and with that, inspectors began paying more attention to foreign material issues. As issues were seen within the complaint records, more recalls were issued.
Is a more aggressive response prudent? Not being involved directly in these investigations, it is difficult to know exactly. From the recall notices, it appears that many recalls are issued after one complaint. But what did the investigation show? It is important that complaints are well investigated before wasting resources on a recall. I have seen where complaints were made by consumers in order to get a replacement product (free product). There were other cases where the consumer improperly cut the package with a part of that package unknowingly falling into the product only to be viewed by the consumer as a foreign object. People have assumed the food was a source of a foreign object when that food was used in a recipe.
Perhaps some of us come from a different era that when we found a piece of plastic in a food item, we accepted that as 'something that can happen', and threw the piece of plastic out. Not saying that is right and that food companies should do a better job, but if no injury than no foul.
We are already seeing people pay less heed to recalls. As we add more and more recalls to the weekly list, it is bound to increase the consumer ambivalence. So at the very least, time should be allowed for an investigation and companies should be allowed input on the determination of whether the recall is necessitated. In the end, they will pay for the real issues.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-food-safety-guidelines-expected-after-spike-meat-poultry-recalls-n979161
New food safety guidelines expected after spike in meat and poultry recalls
More food prepared by machines contributes to more parts breaking off and contaminating food, consumer advocates say.
March 4, 2019, 5:53 PM EST
By Reuters
Washington State Firm Recalls Ground Beef Chubs After Complaint of Hard Plastic
WASHINGTON, March 2, 2019 – Washington Beef, LLC, a Toppenish, Wash. establishment, is recalling approximately 30,260 pounds of ground beef chubs products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, specifically hard plastic and metal. The problem was discovered by a consumer complaint to the company on February 28, 2019. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
https://origin-www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-024-2019-release
Washington Beef, LLC Recalls Ground Beef Products due to Possible Foreign Matter Contamination
Class I Recall
024-2019
Health Risk:High
Mar 2, 2019
https://origin-www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-case-archive/archive/2019/recall-024-2019-release
Washington Beef, LLC Recalls Ground Beef Products due to Possible Foreign Matter Contamination
Class I Recall
024-2019
Health Risk:High
Mar 2, 2019
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Salmonella Outbreak Associated with Tahini Appears to Be Over
As of February 27, 2019, FDA and CDC are saying that the multistate outbreak of Salmonella Concord illnesses linked to tahini imported from an Israeli manufacturer, Achdut Ltd., located in Ari’el, Israel appears to be over. In all, there were 8 cases of salmonellosis.
February 8 Update
https://pennstatefoodsafety.blogspot.com/2019/02/fda-investigating-multistate-salmonella.html
FDA Investigated a Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Concord Linked to Tahini Produced by Achdut Ltd.
Update: February 27, 2019
Case Counts
Total Illnesses: 8
Hospitalizations: 0
Deaths: 0
Last illness onset: April 21, 2018 to January 3, 2019
States with Cases: HI (1), MA (1), MI (1), NY (5)
February 8 Update
https://pennstatefoodsafety.blogspot.com/2019/02/fda-investigating-multistate-salmonella.html
FDA Investigated a Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Concord Linked to Tahini Produced by Achdut Ltd.
Update: February 27, 2019
Case Counts
Total Illnesses: 8
Hospitalizations: 0
Deaths: 0
Last illness onset: April 21, 2018 to January 3, 2019
States with Cases: HI (1), MA (1), MI (1), NY (5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)