Food Safety News

BCS African Receives FDA Warning Letter

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:07 -0800

Fish processing and general sanitation problems plague BCS African Wholesale Food Supply in Brooklyn Park, MN, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a July 20 warning letter.

BCS advertises itself as a direct importer/wholesaler of African foods. In addition to its food business, it offers international phone cards, shipping barrels, and money gram transfer services.

Both FDA and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture inspected the wholesale foods facility over several dates last March and April. FDA said there were "serious violations" of the seafood Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), Current Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and federal code of regulation.

"Accordingly, your uneviscertated smoked/dried fish (including Pike, Jack Cavalli, Bony fish and Kangbe fish) smoked fish and seafood (including smoked Herring Bloaters, smoked Barracuda, smoked Catfish, smoked Pike), and other various frozen and fresh fish (including snails, Red Snapper, and Titus sardines) are adulterated in that they have prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health," wrote Ann Adams, FDA's acting Minneapolis district director.

Adams said FDA inspectors also found "serious deviations" involving palm, oil, rice, beans, and other packaged food products. Among FDA's concerns are sanitation problems at the facility including:

-Food debris is collected on a metal saw used to portion fish. Food contact surfaces must be kept clean.

-The hand sink was clogged and slow draining. Hand washing facilities are supposed to be maintained.

-Gaskets on freezers were missing or damaged. Warehouse walls contain debris. Building and fixtures are supposed to be maintained.

-Insects were gaining entry through the wall and floor. Pests are supposed to be excluded from food plants.

-There was a food buildup from the palm oil rebottling process. Food contact surfaces are to be kept clean.

African Wholesale was told it needed a seafood HACCP plan for each kind of fish or fish product it produces. FDA is especially concerned about control of Clostridium botulinum, which causes deadly botulism, for the "bony fish," crayfish, and tilapia the food company imports from Nigeria and China.

FDA gave the Minnesota company 15 working days to respond to the issues raised in the warning letter.

Fungus Infects Basil Crops from Coast to Coast

lcurran@foodsafetynews.com (Laurel Curran) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

A fungus called Basil downy mildew is rapidly spreading throughout basil crops all over the country. Though the fungus is not known to negatively effect human health, it does turn basil an unnatural yellow color with a occasional brownish-black mold appearing later on.

This particular type of fungus was first seen in the United States back in 2007. It has been spreading with increasing speed ever since. Today crops on the East Coast have been hit the hardest, and the fungus has been found infecting plants as far west as California.

Some farmers are being harder hit than others. Large industrial farmers have access to different types of fungicides that can stave off the fungus, but organic and small farms have less ability to prevent the disease.

Francesco DeBaggio of DeBaggio's Herb Farm in Virginia reported that he killed about $18,000 worth of plants since May, reported FoodManufacturing.com. "It's huge for us," he said. "We're so small it's fairly significant. We would have sold 100 percent of those that were destroyed."

Margaret McGrath, a professor of plant pathology at Cornell University, suggests planting herbs in areas that receive the most sunlight, and spacing plants apart from each other to minimize spreading of the fungus. Experts have also suggested planting varieties of basil that are more resistant to the fungus, including many darker leaf varieties.

Basil is an important ingredient in a number of different types of food, including Italian and Thai food.

Though the fungus does not harm human health, it severely effects sales.

DeBaggio has decided against trying to grow Basil again this year. "We're just not going to take any chances," he said. "To have another season like this, that would put us out of business. We couldn't survive that again. Once you ruin your reputation, you can't get it back."

POM Wonderful Gets Judge To Seal Records

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against "prior restraint" of the media by government except in very extraordinary circumstances.

The threshold to impose prior restraint was viewed as high enough the Obama Administration did not try to prevent the publishing of those 92,000 pages of classified battlefield reports from Afghanistan.

But it did not stop D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff from taking an act of prior restraint on her own July 23 by issuing a temporary restraining order against The National Law Journal.

Bartnoff is reported to have said: "If I am throwing 80 years of First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, so be it."

The order prevents the Law Journal from publishing legally obtained information from court documents involving a dispute between POM Wonderful and one of its former outside law firm, Washington, D.C.-based Hogan Lovells.

The law firm is seeking payment for $666,265 of billings from POM that have gone unpaid for work it claims it incurred in representing POM in a regulatory issue.

In the pay dispute, POM asked the D.C. Superior Court to seal documents involving the issue for which they had sought the Hogan firm's counsel. The judge has gone along with the request, even sealing records that had previously been part of the public docket.

"Specifically, we are not allowed to name a government agency conducting a regulatory inquiry into one of the subjects of the article, POM Wonderful, " David L. Brown, Law Journal editor in chief, said in a July 26 editor's note.

Brown said the judge was "placing process concerns over fundamental constitutional rights."

One government regulatory agency known to be in dispute with POM Wonderful, a subsidiary of the privately held Roll International Corp., is the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

Food Safety News reported last March 9 that POM Wonderful was one of 17 food manufacturers accused in FDA warning letters of violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic act with false product labeling.

At that time, POM was not trying to hide, but rather was pushing back against FDA with strong public statements like this: "All statements made in connection with POM products are true, and are supported by an unprecedented body of scientific research."

As for the billing dispute, it is apparently going to proceed in Bartnoff's court with all references to the regulatory investigation remaining sealed. Law Journal is working on an appeal so it can use what knows.

On Restaurant Grades: Giving an F to Josh Ozersky

dstearns@marlerclark.com (Denis Stearns) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:03 -0800

In coming up with topics for my opinion-pieces here at Food Safety News, I have been trying not to be so critical--which is to say, trying not to build a topic around me criticizing someone for their opinions or proposals. For as I observed in my last piece, The Perils of Punditry, there is not much good to be accomplished by "off-the-cuff opinion-making and online sophistry."[1] A perfect case in point--and the thing that got me right back to the business of criticizing--is the recent opinion-piece, Giving an F to New York's Restaurant Grading System, by Josh Ozersky published online at Time.com.[2] In the piece, Ozersky decries the posting of letter grades, based on a restaurant's most recent health inspection, as being akin to Hester Prynne "being...shamed for all the world to see."

To put it mildly, Ozersky's piece is so silly it almost seems like intentional satire, along the lines of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.[3] To put it less mildly, it is brain-numbingly asinine. Take, for example, the assertion that "New York and L.A. have become downright draconian in their urge to oversee the inner workings of small businesses like restaurants." But what has really changed here about how restaurants are overseen? Why, nothing at all. The regulations remain essentially the same, based as they are on the FDA Model Food Code, and the Food Establishment Inspection Report, which have existed in their current format since 1993.[4] Moreover, residents of New York City have for quite some time been able to look online for copies of a restaurant's recent inspection reports.[5] So, really, the only thing that is changing is that the results of the inspection are translated into a letter-grade, and restaurants must now prominently post the grade in the front window.

But with this one change, Ozersky has been prompted to announce that he "hate[s] to see regulation enforced in such an arbitrary and imperious way." Even worse, according to Ozersky, the "new letter-grading system will only further encourage the big chain restaurants that are serving crappy food zapped by microwaves." Yes, I can see it now. Mario Batali will be forced to close Babbo, only to have it replaced by an Applebee's restaurant. To say that Ozersky is being just a little hysterical in his hyperbole is quite the understatement.

Hyperbole is not all that Ozersky relies upon for his rant. He also trots out a few false analogies, like the one where he equates restaurant inspectors (or, in his words, "health department functionaries") with "the stone-faced meter matron" who is utterly indifferent to his "explanation of why I was about to move my car." Of course, Ozersky's analogy might be somewhat less inapt (and less inept) if the failure to move one's car had the potential cause an outbreak of foodborne illness. But since it does not, perhaps the "indifference to cooking" of which he accuses restaurant inspectors might not be such a bad thing--that is, when it saves lives. Ozersky is, however, much too busy complaining about the imagined absence of "tender mozzarella and piquant salami" to give much weight to the presence of Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7.

Perhaps sensing that his rant against restaurant letter-grades has devolved into a plea to abolish all food safety regulations, and to leave the poor chefs alone, Ozersky feigns recognition of the necessity of some regulation as he ends his essay, writing:

"Still, as imperious and ill-advised as many of the city's health-department rules may be, no one would argue that there shouldn't be any oversight of what we're fed in restaurants. Chefs left to themselves won't take the time to keep pork from rubbing up against chicken, despite the manifest hazards of [S]almonella. But to grade restaurants using a system that rewards nuked food over slow cooking? That seems merely mean. Is it some thwarted, fugitive Tea Party impulse that I feel kicking inside me? Or simple well-earned skepticism, as I wonder, Who grades the graders? I need the health department to watch out for me. I know that. But I don't need them to publicly humiliate small businesses in order to do so."

So, apparently Ozersky prefers that the humiliation of a near-failed inspection be kept private, and the results of such an inspection safeguarded from the prying eyes of potential customers. I mean, otherwise, customers might just reward restaurants who pass their inspections with flying colors, and avoid dining in restaurants that do not. And, otherwise, a customer who sees a restaurant with a C-grade might pull out her smart-phone and check for herself what the inspection reports says, and then make her dining decision according. And, otherwise, market forces would reward restaurants who invest in safety and training while punishing those that do not. And, otherwise, the safety and cleanliness of restaurants would increase as a result of great transparency and accountability in the market place.

But never mind about all of that. Ozersky is worried about the health department hassling the a few chefs who want to cook sous vide without being bothered with the "need to draw up a hazard plan worthy of Three Mile Island." I mean, come on, what's a little botulism among friends? Because that is the significant food safety risk that the health department is attempting to protect the public from by requiring the chefs who use this low-temperature cooking process to think carefully about before using the public as unwitting guinea pigs.[6] Thus, far from being indifferent to cooking, as Ozersky accuses, health inspectors are simply putting the priority straight. No matter how delicious and innovative the food, if it is contaminated with a deadly pathogen, I guarantee that you would rather not eat it.

Bon Appétit!

1. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/the-perils-of-punditry-everyone-has-an-opinion/

2. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2005191,00.html

3. The complete title of Swift's famous (or infamous) essay is A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. See Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal Written in 1729, Swift mocks the authority of British officials by suggesting that the Irish could solve their economic problems by selling their children as food for the rich, writing "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."

4. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/default.htm With the input of the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFD), the Food Code is updated regularly. Since being issued in 1993, 49 of 50 states have adopted a version of the Code, covering 95.5% of US population. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/RetailFoodProtection/FederalStateCooperativePrograms/ucm108156.htm The current version of the model Food Establishment Inspection Report can be found here: http://www.foodprotect.org/media/guide/CFPFoodEstabInspFormCommFormAppxA.pdf And the NYC version is here: www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/inspect/foodservicescoresheet.pdf

5. The website is maintained by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. http://167.153.150.32/RI/web/index.do;jsessionid=3D16B2434E13AFC783E1E451DB231664?method=goldenAppleList

6. Here is the risk posed by sous vide cooking, when done improperly, as described by one talented New York chef who somehow managed to survive the bother of getting his restaurant's hazard plan approved by the health department. According to Chef Daniel Angerer, Dangerous bacteria such as botulism can thrive and grow in an oxygen free environment as in sous-vide cooked foods - hence the HACCP plan. "If food does not get handled properly a contamination of botulism can occur which leads to violent illness and death could even result." See Chef Angerer's complete blog-post about sous vide here: http://chefdanielangerer.typepad.com/chef_daniel_angerers_blog/2010/05/my-love-affair-with-the-department-of-health-.html

Reid Wants to Pass Food Bills Before Recess

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:02 -0800

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Tuesday he hopes to pass pending food safety legislation and the child nutrition reauthorization, two major food bills, before August recess.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), the primary sponsor of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which was unanimously voted out of committee in November, told POLITICO's Pulse yesterday he feels better about the bill's prospects "than I have in a long time."

The food safety bill has lost steam in the Senate, as Food Safety News recently reported, there are currently three challenges for the legislation: time, bisphenol-A (BPA) politics, and small farmer concerns.

Several media outlets recently reported that Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) insistence on adding controversial language to ban the use of BPA in food and drink containers is the primary holdup for the legislation.

Durbin told POLITICO's Pulse yesterday, however, he doesn't think BPA will be a problem, adding that he believes the bill will have bipartisan support.

"We're ready," he said. "We're talking to her; we're talking about the amendment, and I hope we can work something out."

Feinstein's office says she's still working with Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ranking member Mike Enzi (R-WY) on a compromise.

Many insiders believe that if the bill were given a timeline for getting to floor, the final details would be ironed out and compromises would be reached.

Reid also said Tuesday he would like to move on the child nutrition reauthorization bill, which would raise the reimbursement rate for school lunch, make way for taking junk food and soda out of vending machines and snack bars, launch farm-to-school pilots, and expand school breakfast programs.

"It would be nice if we could do something with child nutrition--we're going to try to do that," Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday. "I'm told that that could be bipartisan."

The one-year extension on the current child nutrition bill expires September 30. The Senate is scheduled to begin a month-long recess August 9.

FDA Issues Reportable Food Registry Update

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:59:01 -0800

FDA Says New System Helped Identify Over 100 Food Safety Problems in First 7 Months

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a report yesterday on the agency's new Reportable Food Registry. According to FDA, over 100 food safety reports were electronically submitted by industry in the first seven months.

"The FDA's new reporting system has already proven itself an invaluable tool to help prevent contaminated food from reaching the public," said FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael Taylor, who called the Registry a real "success story" for the agency, on a call with reporters yesterday.

The report, which analyzes reports to the Registry from September through March 2009, indicates the agency received 125 primary reports (initial reports about a safety concern with a food or animal feed, including food ingredients) and 1,638 subsequent reports from suppliers or recipients of a food or feed.

Since early September, federal law has required any facility that manufactures, packs, or holds human or animal food to issue an electronic report to the agency if the company realizes it shipped potentially harmful food into commerce. Though the system has been in place for many months, not much has been known about how well the program is working.

Food Safety News reported in late November that the agency had received 385 reports on FDA-regulated foods from both food industry facilities and public health officials. Of the 385 initial reports, 70 were initial reports, 269 were subsequent reports, and 46 were amended reports. An FDA official declined to say how many of the reports the agency followed up on.

According to an agency spokesperson, a review team meets each work day to discuss all submissions.

Yesterday the agency highlighted two actions that were prompted by the Registry:

-In February 2010, a recall of hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP), was initiated without any reports of illness. More than 1,000 industry reports specifically for products containing HVP, resulted in the removal of 177 products from commerce.

-In November 2009, a recall of products containing sulfites, without proper labeling, was initiated without any reports of illness after more than 100 reports regarding the ingredient.

According to FDA, for 125 primary reports, Salmonella accounted for 37 percent of hazards, undeclared allergens or intolerances accounted for 35 percent, and Listeria monocytogenes accounted for 13 percent. Among the 11 different commodity categories involved were: 14 animal feed or pet food, 12 seafood, 11 spices and seasonings, and 10 dairy products.

Taylor was quick to note yesterday, however, that the results shouldn't be taken as representative of all contamination incidents in the food supply, though eventually the agency hopes to use the data for identifying trends and target resources.

"Industry is increasingly detecting contamination incidents through its own testing, and FDA access to this information permits us to better target our inspection resources and verify that appropriate corrective measures have been taken," Taylor said.

The initial report can be read in its entirety here. Taylor told reporters yesterday the agency will periodically update the public on the Registry's results.

Record Red Meat Production for June

anemeth@foodsafetynews.com (Alexa Nemeth) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:07 -0800

Commercial red meat production for the United States totaled 4.18 billion pounds in June 2010, up slightly from the 4.16 billion pounds produced in June 2009.

Meatingplace reported that beef production, at 2.32 billion pounds, was 1 percent above production for the previous year. Cattle slaughter totaled 3.05 million head, up 2 percent from June 2009. The average live weight was down 8 pounds from the previous year, at 1,261 pounds.

Pork production totaled 1.83 billion pounds, down 1 percent from the previous year. Hog kill totaled 9.04 million head, down 1 percent from June 2009. The average live weight was up 2 pounds from the previous year, at 271 pounds.

Veal production totaled 10.8 million pounds, 7 percent below June a year ago. Calf slaughter totaled 68,600 head, down 11 percent from June 2009. The average live weight was up 18 pounds from last year, at 269 pounds.

Lamb and mutton production, at 14.1 million pounds, was up 2 percent from June 2009. Sheep slaughter totaled 212,000 head, 5 percent above last year. The average live weight was 134 pounds, down 3 pounds from June a year ago.

January to June commercial red meat production was down 2 percent from 2009, at 23.9 billion pounds.

Iams Cat Food Recalled by Procter & Gamble

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:07 -0800

Another pet food recall is in the works because of possible Salmonella contamination.

This time it is the Procter & Gamble Company that is recalling cat food. The company's Iams brand is involved. Recalled are:

-Iams Veterinary Formulas Feline Renal 5.5 lbs, UPC 0 19014 21405 1.

-Iams Veterinary Formulas Feline Renal 5.5 lbs., UPC 0 19014 21405 1.

The lots codes are 01384174B4 and 01384174B2.

This product is available by prescription through veterinary clinics throughout the U.S.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the recalled cat food.

An analysis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identified a positive Salmonella result on the lot codes. Lot codes can be found in the lower right corner on the back of the bag.

Consumers who have purchased dry cat food with these codes should discard it. People handling dry pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product.

People exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation and urinary tract symptoms.

Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. If left untreated, pets may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

For further information or a product refund call Procter & Gamble toll-free at 877-894-4458 (Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST).

PA Dairy Farm Enters Into Consent Decree With FDA

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:06 -0800

A Pennsylvania diary farm has agreed to keep illegal drug residues out of animals sold for human consumption.

The H.B . Williams Inc. dairy farm, located near Kingsley, PA, has agreed to abide by federal regulations that protect meat from illegal drug residues caused by the unapproved use of animal drugs in cattle before slaughter.

The agreement was reached in the form of a consent decree of permanent injunction, which was obtained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Dairy owners, Donna L. Williams, Jeffrey D. Williams, and Mark H. Williams entered into the consent decree with FDA July 26 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The dairy farm is not permitted under the agreement to sell animals for food unless and until it meets several requirements, including establishment of a recordkeeping system approved by the FDA to track the identity of medicated animals and the drugs and dosages given.

After the farm resumes selling animals for food, the decree authorizes the FDA to require the farm to cease operations and pay fines if FDA determines that the farm has violated the decree.

The FDA is concerned about the sale of animals for human food that may contain illegal levels of animal drugs because of the potential for adverse effects on human health.

The FDA approves new animal drugs with requirements, including a specified time period to withdraw an animal from treatment prior to slaughter, to ensure that a drug has been depleted from edible tissue to a level safe for humans.

The dairy farm sold animals through local livestock auctions to slaughterhouses that ship beef products to customers in New Jersey, New York, Maine, and Michigan.

The drug residues detected in tissue samples of the farm's dairy cows and veal calves during tests by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service included antibiotics such as neomycin, flunixin, desfuroylceftiofur, and sulfamethazine at levels not permitted by the FDA.

U.S. District Judge James M. Munley signed the agreement.

Study: More Meat Leads to Weight Gain

anemeth@foodsafetynews.com (Alexa Nemeth) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:05 -0800

According to a European study, people who eat more meat are likely to gain weight over time even if they eat the same number of calories as their peers.

The research showed that people gain 4.4 more pounds over a five-year period for every extra 250 grams of meat (roughly equivalent to a 450 calorie steak) they ate daily. Researchers said the link remained even after accounting for total calories consumed, physical activity levels, and other variables.

Poultry was the meat most strongly associated with annual weight change. Red meat was only weakly linked to weight gain, Meatingplace reported.

Researchers said participants who had changed their diets due to weight loss attempts or illness likely drove the association, though misreporting of food intakes was also possible.

When participants who had had previous illnesses or were likely to misreport what they were eating were removed from consideration, processed meat had the strongest association with weight gain over a five-year period.

The findings of the study, which were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, come from a new analysis of data from 103,455 men and 270,348 women aged 25 to 70 as part of the EPIC study in 10 European countries. In most cases, initial weights were measured using standardized procedures, and follow-up weights were self-reported. Dietary assessment methods varied by countries but included self-administered questionnaires.

Brazil Meatpackers Battle Deforestation

anemeth@foodsafetynews.com (Alexa Nemeth) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:05 -0800

Brazil's three largest meatpackers, JBS Friboi, Marfrig Alimentos and Minerva, have suspended cattle purchases from 221 ranches located on indigenous land, conservation areas, or near recently-deforested areas in the Amazon, according to reports submitted to Greenpeace.

After Greenpeace released its "Slaughtering the Amazon" report exposing links between cattle ranching in the Amazon region and deforestation, the companies signed pacts to change their practices.

"The initiative shows that meatpackers understood, in a clear and definitive way, consumers' environmental concern message. This announcement indicates that the process is moving forward, that companies are taking steps on the matter," Greenpeace campaign coordinator Márcio Astrini told AE Brazil Newswire.

According to Meatingplace, Astrini also said that by the end of the year a much larger number of ranches will be excluded from the companies' cattle supplier list.

Pictured: In some regions of the Brazilian Amazon, scattered tree stubs are the only indication that a forest once existed. Credit: Robert Walker, Geography Department, Michigan State University. From: National Science Foundation Website

UK Re-Tools Plans for Reducing Campylobacter

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:03 -0800

With 65 percent of the raw shop-bought chicken in the United Kingdom contaminated with Campylobacter, a potentially deadly pathogen, the UK's Food Standards Agency has mapped out a plan to reduce the threat.

The strategy the agency will pursue will include:

-Implementing stricter biosecurity measures across the whole supply chain, such as ensuring hygiene barriers are standard on the farm and include new fly-control systems.

-Developing new standards and additional monitoring for the evisceration process to minimize cross-contamination when chickens are slaughtered.

-Trying out new carcass decontaminating treatments using existing "kitchen cupboard" ingredients, such as lactic acid (and other organic acids), to provide safety and efficacy data for applications to the European Commission to permit their use.

-Investigating the impact of different packaging types on reducing levels of Campylobacter on chickens for retail sale.

The Food Standards Agency actions will be taken in cooperation with poultry farms and chicken retailers and the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra).

"Campylobacter is the single biggest cause of food poisoning in the UK and we have made it our number one food safety priority," says Liz Redmond, the veterinary director who heads food hygiene policy for the agency.

Redmond said the steps now being taken were developed at an international conference in March.

"We look forward to continuing to work pro-actively with the food industry to implement changes that are aimed at making UK chicken safer and as part of this process will be setting a new target by December 2010 for reducing Campylobacter in chicken by 2015," Redmond added.

The Food Standards Agency acknowledged in its latest annual report it is not going to meet a previously established goal of reducing Campylobacter by 50 percent by December 2010.

In its new plan, the agency plans to fund new research on the organism.

Congress Begins Work on Chemical Safety Overhaul

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:02 -0800

The House of Representatives is starting to move legislation that would fundamentally overhaul chemical laws for the first time in over three decades.

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act, H.R. 5820, introduced last week by Reps. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), seeks to reform the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, enacted under President Ford in 1976.

According to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based consumer and environmental advocacy group, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act would make a number of significant changes in the current approach to chemical regulation, including:

-Establishing a framework to ensure that all chemicals to which the American people are exposed are reviewed for safety and restricted where necessary to protect public health and the environment.

-Requiring the chemical industry to develop and provide to the Environmental Protection Agency essential safety data, and improving EPA's authority to compel safety testing where necessary.

-Ensuring that non-confidential information about chemicals submitted to EPA is readily available to the public and that critical confidential information is shared among regulators, state officials, and workers in the industry.

-Establishing an expedited process enabling EPA to reduce exposure to chemicals that are known to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.

-Promoting research to advance understanding of children's vulnerability to the harms of chemicals.

"Not as much as a speed bump dots the current regulatory path that toxic chemicals travel to get on the market, in products and ultimately into people." said Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook. "The House plan, along with legislation introduced earlier this year in the Senate, will finally bring some order to the free-wheeling, 'wild west' approach industry has enjoyed for more than 30 years, sending thousands of chemicals through the EPA's toothless review program faster than a bullet through a barrel."

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced his proposal for reform, titled the Safe Chemicals Act, in April. The House and Senate bills are similar in their approach, asking industry to prove that a chemical is safe before it can be introduced into the marketplace.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America said last week the group welcomes the legislation.

"We agree with the Chairmen that it is time to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act, and have been working with Congress, the Administration, and stakeholders to enhance the way chemicals are reviewed and managed," said Pamela Bailey, president and CEO of the the Grocery Manufacturers in a statement. "We hope to continue working with the committee as they further refine the bill."

"The food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry is committed to helping enact meaningful [Toxic Substances Control Act] reform based on sound science that will ensure consumer confidence, while promoting jobs and innovation," said Bailey.

A summary and text of the House bill are available on the Energy and Commerce Committee Website.

Japan and U.S. to Reopen Talks on Beef Exports

lcurran@foodsafetynews.com (Laurel Curran) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:59:01 -0800

There is good news for the American beef export industry. Japan announced Friday that the country has decided to resume talks this September about potentially re-opening the Japanese market for U.S. beef exports. These talks have been stalled since the summer of 2007. Japan originally banned American beef in 2003 after a Washington state cow was found to harbor bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more commonly known as mad cow disease. In 2006 Japan slightly eased up on imports, allowing beef from cows under 21 months of age into the country. The disease has not been detected in cows 21 months or younger. The Japanese also require that the brains, vertebrate, spinal cord, and bone marrow be properly removed before export. Before 2003 Japan was the largest importer of U.S. beef, consuming an estimated $1.2 billion worth of U.S. beef yearly. When beef began pouring back into Japan in 2006 it was met with mixed reactions from consumers. A poll in early December by Kyodo News reported that 75.2 percent of respondents refused to eat American beef.

Over the past four years the Japanese have eased up on their fear of American beef. Currently the United States exports about $496 million worth of beef a year. This is less than half of the export market U.S. beef used to hold. Today, Japan imports beef from many other countries, including Australia and China. The ban has continued because of the discrepancy in U.S. and Japanese food safety standards. The Japanese government wants the U.S. to check each individual carcass for mad cow disease, which is a precaution U.S. beef producers find unnecessary and expensive. Though many Japanese consumers refused to eat American beef in 2006, popular opinion may have changed to support the higher rates of imports the September talks are expected to bring. In 2006 the New York Times reported the comments of Shigemi Oishi, the owner of 110 restaurants in Japan that began serving U.S. beef after the ban was lifted. He explained his customers' wariness, "Once they try it, they realize it's really the best type of beef for grilling like this." Oishi traveled to Denver to inspect a slaughterhouse for himself, and deemed it safe enough to serve. "The United States has to do more to let Japan know that its meat is safe," he said. "It can't just rely on restaurants like us." Over the past four years popularity has been slowly growing. The USDA reports that in 2003 over $1.18 billion worth of beef were exported to Japan. In 2004 this number drastically fell to $31 million. In 2005 it rose to $50 million, then doubled to $105 million in 2006. After the ban was lifted for young cattle, exports rose to $294 million in 2007, $239 million in 2008 and $496 million in 2009. This number is still low compared to levels before the mad cow scare in 2003.

South Korea has traditionally followed Japan's lead in bans, and U.S. exports still sit at around one-fifth of the rates from before the 2003 mad cow disease scare in Korea.These rates may all experience a quick rise if the presumed talks proceed as beef industry advocates hope.

Japanese Farm Minister Masahiko Yamada announced the upcoming talks this past Friday.

Sprouts Recalled For Listeria Contamination

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:08 -0800

Two Specialty Farms brands of alfalfa sprouts--Organic Sprouts Blend and Organic Sprout Salad--were recalled Monday.

Both have a sell-by date of 7/26/2010 and are sold in 4-ounce plastic containers. Recalled are:

-Specialty Farms Organic Alfalfa Sprout Blend, UPC 8192400108

-Specialty Farms Organic Sprout Salad, UPC 8192400024

Specialty Farms, LLC, based in Connecticut, recalled the sprouts after laboratory analysis found positive results from one retail sample.

The recalled sprouts were distributed to Price Chopper, a retail grocery chain, and another distributor, Cooseman's NY.

Products have been distributed in the following states: NY, CT, MA, NH, VT, and PA

Specialty Farms, LLC is currently in the process of determining exactly where this potential Listeria contamination could be occurring in its facility.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return them to the point of purchase for refund and may contact the company with questions at (203) 366-6919 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST.

Listeria Monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.

Symptoms include high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea; Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Corn and Poblano Peppers Recalled for Listeria

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:07 -0800

Pasco Processing LLC has recalled Corn and Poblano peppers intended for Chipotle Mexican Grill Restaurant locations in California, Nevada, and Arizona. The company, based in Pasco, WA, recalled 2,087 cases of 20 pound bulk packaged Corn and Poblano peppers, (SKU 10071179017738) for possible Listeria contamination.

Pasco Processing transferred the peppers to the J.R. Simplot Company for distribution. The recalled peppers were labeled as:

"Corn and Poblano Blend; 10071179 017738; 20 lbs. Net Wt.; Distributed by J. R. Simplot Co., Boise, Idaho 83707"

The recall extends only to products coded 3901741007 and 3901751007 sold to two foodservice distributors in California and one in Arizona and then further distributed to Chipotle.

No illnesses have been associated with the recall.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.

Symptoms include high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths in pregnant women.

Chipotle, one of the country's best known fast-casual restaurant chains, said all the recalled product it has received were removed from its locations and quarantined for destruction. None of the production time periods found to contain Listeria monocytogenes were delivered to restaurants.

A positive result for Listeria was returned in routine testing conducted by the company. Pasco Processing, LLC and Chipotle are collaborating closely with the investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Ice Cream with Peanuts is Allergy Threat

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:06 -0800

Oregon Ice Cream Company LLC of Eugene, OR is voluntarily recalling 641 tubs of 3 gallon Denali Bear Claw ice cream, because it may contain undeclared peanuts.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Denali Bear Claw ice cream was distributed in the following states: Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, and Alaska. Consumers can buy this product at ice cream scoop shops or from Cash & Carry stores.

The product can be easily identified by the label on the side of the 3 gallon tub. The label reads in part "Denali Bear Claw", Distributed by Oregon Ice Cream Company, Plant 41-90, 3 gallons, 10124, 061041. The affected lot code of product is 10124 and the item number of the product is 061041.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the recalled product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product containing peanuts was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by accidental use of ingredients with very similar packaging during production.

Consumers who have purchased Denali Bear Claw are urged to return it to the place of purchase for full refunds if in the original container, otherwise destroy the product.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-282-2202, office hours are between 8am and 5pm Monday through Friday PST.

Hummus Recalled for Listeria Contamination

sschreck@foodsafetynews.com (Suzanne Schreck) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:06 -0800

The California Department of Public Health is warning consumers not to eat Raquel's brand hummus salads, wraps, sandwiches, and other food items (pdf) since the products could be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria is especially dangerous for pregnant women, young children, and the elderly. The incubation period--time between ingestion and the onset of symptoms--for listeriosis, the illness caused by the ingestion of Listeria bacteria, ranges from three to 70 days and averages 21 days.

A person with listeriosis may develop fever, muscle aches, and sometimes gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea. If infection spreads to the nervous system, symptoms such as headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance, or convulsions can occur. In immune-deficient individuals, Listeria can invade the central nervous system, causing meningitis and/or encephalitis.

Infected pregnant women ordinarily experience only a mild, flu-like illness; however, infection during pregnancy can lead to miscarriage, infection of the newborn, or even stillbirth.

According to a California Department of Public Health press release, Quong Hop & Co. initiated the voluntary recall of "Raquel's" brand products after sampling conducted by the health department detected Listeria monocytogenes in a processing plant. In addition to the bacteria concerns, an allergen, soy lecithin, is used in the production of hummus but it is not mentioned on the label.

Raquel's PackageRaquel's products are packaged in a variety of sizes. The hummus has a product date of Sept. 23, 2010 and prior. Salads, wraps, sandwiches, and other food items have product dates of Aug. 3, 2010 and prior.

Raquel's is distributed to supermarkets and natural food stores in several western states, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Consumers who purchased these products should immediately discard them or return them to the store where they were purchased. Anyone who handles these products should wash their hands thoroughly afterwards. Consumers with questions can call Quong Hop at (650) 553-9900 extension 13.

Turkish Food Safety Control Results Released

anemeth@foodsafetynews.com (Alexa Nemeth) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:05 -0800

Food safety controls testing Conducted last year by the Turkish Agriculture Ministry in line with EU food regulations showed that 5.28 percent of the analyzed products yielded "negative" results, and 4.42 percent turned out to contain pesticide residue. The results have nevertheless been viewed positively as the negative rate was below that seen in 2008.

According to The Hurriyet Daily News, Of the 22,172 samples analyzed by the ministry, 1,171 of them proved incompatible with the regulations.

The ministry conducted two different categories of analysis: "contents" analysis and "packaging" analysis. In terms of packaging, food producers passed the test with almost 98 percent in accordance with the norm. The worst results were detected in molasses, poultry, fig jam, honey, and red pepper used for spices.

Thirty-four percent of molasses samples, 18 percent of poultry and meat samples, nearly 18 percent of fig jam samples, and 17 percent of honey samples proved to be negative. Almost 22 percent of honey cracker samples and 15 percent of red pepper samples turned out to contain aflatoxin, a toxin among the most carcinogenic of substances, in amounts above the allowable limits.

About 2.5 percent of olive oil samples and 8 percent of vegetable oil samples violated packaging regulations. The analyses also showed that the use of harmful oil in palm-oil production was recorded at 8 percent.

Dairy products, red meat, and grain food items had fewer negative samples than the average, and a majority of bread samples were compatible with microbiological criteria. Only 2 percent of the bread samples yielded negative results, and dairy products showed negative results for only 5 percent.

Red meat samples were analyzed in terms of unlawful additions and equine meat, and less than 1 percent was recorded as negative. However, in terms of poultry meat in addition to red meat, the samples proved negative at 3 percent.

About 17 percent of the honey samples and 34 percent of molasses samples violated packaging regulations while 8 percent of candies analyzed violated the regulations in terms of artificial food coloring.

The dried fruits analyzed gave promising results in terms of aflatoxin, particularly in the case of hazelnuts.

Almost 3 percent of the spinach samples analyzed were shown to contain above the limit allowed for nitrate which stems from overuse of fertilizers. Some 4 percent of salt samples also violated the regulations in terms of iodine content, and 2 percent of pickled grape leaf samples did so in terms of sulfur content.

Three of the 599 samples of rakı, vodka, and whisky turned out to contain methyl alcohol, and the amount of alcohol content was shown to violate the regulations for 3 percent of the distilled alcoholic drinks.

The analyses showed that manufacturers demonstrated more interest in following the rules of packaging. Only 0.3 percent of the controlled samples violated packaging regulations.

Only seven of the 3,042 alcoholic drinks and 15 of the 2,984 soft drinks tested violated the regulations. The highest rate of negativity in terms of packaging rules occurred in dairy products with 1 percent.

According to the results of the 2009 analyses, the overall rate of negativity was 5 percent whereas the overall rate of negativity was 6 percent in 2008.

Measuring Pathogens in Poultry

CRJolley@msn.com (Chuck Jolley) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:59:04 -0800

Shouldn't we test for pathogens closer to where the public actually buys their meat and poultry?

In one of his periodic Meatingplace.com blogs (subscription required). Dr. Richard Raymond made a statement about testing poultry parts for pathogens that is stunning in its simplicity. Politically speaking, though, it's potentially a 10.0 on the Richter scale. He wrote, "Deputy Mande wants something that will help 'government and industry...be held accountable by the public' and he wants it measured. Great, I say measure what we eat--poultry parts--just like the beef industry must test and measure ground beef, not carcasses. Get poultry testing to the end product and closer to the consumer. Let's recognize consumers' buying habits of the 21st century and 'measure' what they buy and eat."

He was writing about the pair of FSIS/FDA/CDC joint public meetings to hear stakeholders' thoughts on how to measure progress in food safety. One was held July 21 in Chicago and the other will be held October 20, 2010, in Portland, Oregon. His final question: Do I need to go to Portland, or does this count as my presentation?

Dr. Raymond, I think you need to book a flight to the West coast.

Right now, the meat and poultry industry conducts a vigorous program of production site testing. Processing chicken? Test for Salmonella right then and there--look at the whole bird but don't worry about its pieces and parts right now. Grinding beef? Take a sample immediately and ask a lab for a report on the possible presence of E. coli O157:H7. The hoped for results of course, are that all the products leaving the point of production are pathogen-free. It helps get companies like Tyson and JBS off the legal tenterhooks of lawyers like Bill Marler and lets their top management sleep a little better at night.

But Raymond is suggesting that we take a major, way overdue long step and 'measure what they (the public) buy and eat.'

We don't do that very well. Never have. Probably never will.

The public rarely buys and eats the direct production of a Tyson or a JBS plant. They buy what Kroger and Wal-Mart puts in the cold case. Sure, they'll purchase the occasional tube of ground beef placed straight into the case by a supermarket clerk but the larger purchases are the one- and two-pound re-ground and repackaged product produced in the back room. And how often do you see a few chicken breasts or a half-dozen legs still in an unopened Tyson package?

If Dr. Raymond wants to accurately measure what the public buys and eats, what he's really asking is supermarkets be held to the same rigorous standards as Tyson. It's something that industry has stoutly resisted for reasons that are short-sighted. It keeps the legal responsibility out of their pocketbook and firmly in the hands of Tyson, JBS, Cargill, etc. It does nothing to improve food safety in America.

Sure it's an added expense for retailers and it would mean adding qualified personnel at thousands of points of production. But let's be honest here. If we're all really that interested in presenting a pathogen-free-as-humanly-possible product to the consuming public, checking for pathogens at the point where the product is actually transferred to the consuming public only makes good sense.

But with apologies to Ronald Reagan, "there I go again." I'm still trying to link the phrase 'good sense' with American politics.

Want a bone-chilling food safety comment? I asked Dr. Raymond for some final thoughts on the future of testing poultry parts. "FSIS won't test parts because the results would show at least 25 percent contamination with no way to reduce that statistic," he said. "But they really need to do it to see if dropping the rates on carcasses (a Bush Initiative) has any impact whatsoever and so they and industry can be held accountable with real and pertinent numbers."