
© Food Safety News – by Cookson Beecher

© Food Safety News – by Cookson Beecher
by Gretchen Goetz | Jan 30, 2012
The trucking industry is gearing up to invest in new technologies and tighten shipping procedures in order to meet the Obama Administration’s new food safety regulations.
In December of 2010, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which mandated improvements across the food safety system. For the transportation industry, these changes include a requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) write regulations for the sanitary transportation of food to which truckers must adhere.
According to the new law, HHS must also “improve tracking and tracing of processed foods and fruits and vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities in the event of a foodborne illness outbreak.”
Trace back allows a company to issue a timely recall for any products suspected to be contaminated, and for investigators to figure out exactly where a contaminated product came from.
For truckers, improving traceability means using the latest technologies, such as Global Positioning Systems to keep a record of where every pallet of food is at any given moment, as well as where it came from and where it is distributed, reported FleetOwner last week.
Such tracing technologies have now improved to the point where companies can keep track of not only where a product is, but also the temperature it’s stored at, among a wealth of other information.
“Technology is actually pretty good,” said Dr. John Ryan, president of Ryan Systems, who has spent more than 25 years developing high-tech quality control systems. “You can use sensors to get temperature readings at the pallet level and you can use GPS to track the load and cellular technology to transmit the temperature data in real time. We can also use sensors to detect tampering or find explosives.”
Tracking food at this level of detail will also allow companies to cut down on wasted fresh product that can become spoiled in transit. Currently, about 5 to 7 percent of fresh produce is lost during transportation.
“Produce with the shortest shelf life should be delivered first and through the shortest route,” says Ryan, “in order to give that retailer the most shelf life possible. Technology makes that doable.”
A set of Guidelines for Sanitary Transportation of Food was issued in 2005. The Department of Health and Human Services has yet to publish its protocol for food transportation as mandated by FSMA.
by Helena Bottemiller | Jan 06, 2012
Ammoniated beef has taken a real beating in the media over the past couple years, and now fast-food giants McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Burger King are no longer using it. As veteran journalist Philip Brasher reported over the holidays, the Iowa-based company that manufactures the beef product — at one time used in around 70 percent of American ground beef — has watched sales drop by 25 percent.
Beef Products Inc. uses an innovative process to turn fatty beef trimmings, which used to go mainly into pet food and other byproducts, into hamburger filler. Because the trimmings are at risk for E. coli or Salmonella contamination, the company adds a mixture of ammonia and water (ammonium hydroxide) to kill bacteria. BPI‘s process, progressive food safety policies, and state-of-the art system have received numerous food safety awards and the company has never been linked to a foodborne illness.
But when some consumers find out about the treated beef product — dubbed “pink slime” by a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist — they don’t like what they hear and food companies are taking notice.
In 2008, many American eaters were introduced to the product by Food, Inc, the Oscar-nominated documentary, which portrayed the technology as merely masking a symptom of a bigger problem: the industrial meat system. A year later, a New York Times expose questioned whether the ammonium hydroxide process was really delivering on its food safety promise, which is especially critical considering the product is widely used in the National School Lunch Program.
Last spring, chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver went a step further on his ABC reality show “Food Revolution.” He called the “clever scientific process” shocking and a breach of consumer trust.
Oliver held up raw “inedible” trimmings fit only for “pet food” and put them in a washing machine with ammonia cleaning product to illustrate the BPI process. He also repeatedly called the product “shit.” (That was bleeped out.)
“The supporters of this product would say it’s safe and efficient,” said Oliver to a live audience. “But everything about this process, to me, is about no respect for food, or people, or children, and I’d want to know when I’m eating this stuff. And I’d want it clearly labeled.”
Though Oliver’s show was discontinued last year due to poor ratings, when he blasted ammoniated beef more than 5 million people were watching, according to one estimate. The response on Twitter and the blogosphere was overwhelmingly negative.
McDonald’s and Burger King said their decision to drop BPI beef was not a reaction to the show.
“The decision to remove BPI products from the McDonald’s system was not related to any particular event but rather to support our effort to align our global beef raw material standards,” said Todd Bacon, the company’s senior director for U.S. Quality Systems and Supply Chain Management, in a statement provided to Food Safety News.
Burger King released a similar statement. “The decision to remove BPI products from the BK system is not related to any particular event but rather part of the company’s normal course of business,” the company told the Argus Leader. Taco Bell declined a request for comment.
Industry consultant and blogger Dr. Richard Raymond, former Under Secretary for Food Safety at USDA, blames Oliver’s show for the move to drop the product.
“This move, although not exactly described as such by the three fast food chains, was because of the ‘ick factor’ as revealed by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver,” said Raymond, in an email. “I guess after the two prior attacks, the Oliver video must have been over the top, and it is scary that an activist can potentially take away one of our interventions that makes our food safer. That is not how food safety policy should be determined.”
David Theno, an industry consultant who is credited with revolutionizing Jack in the Box’s food safety program after the 1993 E. coli O157 outbreak, also believes the negative consumer perception of ammoniated beef is bad for food safety.
Theno, who has advised BPI, said he understands why fast food companies are sensitive about their image. “They don’t want to have controversy around their brand names,” he said. “If you ask a technologist they’ll say [ammoniated beef] is the right thing to do … a marketing guy will have a different slant on it.”
“If you don’t want bacteria in your food you have to treat it,” he added. “This is a good ingredient and a very effective intervention. It’s almost like something’s been taken out of the arsenal that shouldn’t have. And as a food safety guy, that bothers me.”
As many in the meat industry have pointed out, ammonium hydroxide is only one of many processing aids or “safe and sustainable ingredients” approved by the government’s Food Safety and Inspection Service to reduce and eliminate pathogens on raw meat products. FSIS has a 52-page list of approved chemicals companies can use to treat raw meat, poultry, and egg products — many of them can be used without any labeling on the package because they are technically considered a process and not an ingredient.
“If consumers and restaurants are up in arms about the use of ammonia and can potentially drive a company out of business by their actions, I can only wonder what they are going to do when they look at the other chemicals in use to try and protect us from foodborne illnesses, chemicals like liquid chlorine and lactic acid just to name a couple,” said Raymond. “There are just certain unpleasant realities of how meat is processed in this country. Those of us with farm backgrounds maybe can accept them a little more readily than someone who has led a life sheltered from these realities.”
The tension between widely used food safety interventions and concern about chemicals in food will surely continue. Recent polling, sponsored by the food industry, suggests consumer confidence in food safety is slipping. At the same time, surveys reveal consumers consistently list chemical and pesticide use in food production as a top concern.
“All new food safety technologies must get through the ultimate filter – and that is consumer acceptance,” notes Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
“Just like irradiation, a potentially life-saving technology to kill pathogens in meat can still face rejection by consumers, who are anxious to provide the best food for their families. The rise in demand for organic and local foods shows that consumers often go outside pure safety considerations to evaluating where and how the food was produced.”
© Food Safety News
By Dina ElBoghdady,Washington Post
Video
Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg says the agency has been “underfunded for decades” even as it is being asked to take on more responsibilities.
An unusual alliance of consumer advocates and industry groups won a victory this month when they helped persuade Congress to boost funding for the Food and Drug Administration, while most other programs paid for by a newly passed agriculture spending bill had their money slashed.
That alliance engaged in an old-style shoe leather campaign to prevent spending cuts for the FDA as the agency prepares to carry out a landmark food safety bill that was adopted by the previous Congress. The effort included at least four dozen visits to congressional offices and grass-roots events in the districts of key lawmakers involved in spending decisions, as well as advertisements in Capitol Hill newspapers.
This month, after weeks of haggling, Congress increased the agency’s funding by nearly 3 percent from last year’s level to $3.8 billion. Of all the additional money FDA secured, the new food safety program captured the largest amount: $39 million.
“Having consumers who were directly affected by food-borne illnesses standing shoulder to shoulder with the food industry sent a powerful message,” said Erik Olson, director of food programs at the Pew Health Group. “It’s not every day that a member of Congress sees somebody from a large food company come in with a consumer group to ask for more resources.”
Just as unusual is that industry, which has often battled against increased government oversight of its businesses, is chasing after any money at all for the agency.
“At a time when some industries are trying to handcuff their regulators, the food industry is advocating for a stronger regulator with more powers and more resources,” said Scott Faber, a vice president at the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
GMA, the American Frozen Food Institute, the Snack Food Association and the Produce Marketing Association were among many groups that made their case in an advertisement sponsored by the Alliance for a Stronger FDA. The ad said that “a science-based and predictable FDA” helps industry to innovate and create high-paying jobs. The products regulated by FDA account for more than 20 percent of U.S. consumer spending.
There are plenty of other dollars-and-cents reasons for industry to support a stronger FDA, experts who track the industry said. Major recalls linked to food-borne illnesses exact real and reputational costs by shaking consumer confidence.
Demand for spinach took years to recover after the 2006 E. Coli outbreak, with total retail expenditures on bagged spinach dropping about $202 million in the 68 weeks after the recall, according to federal data. Kellogg said that it cost roughly $70 million for it to recall some of its peanut-containing products in the wake of a deadly salmonella outbreak linked to one of its suppliers, a peanut processing plant in Georgia. More recently, a listeria outbreak tied to cantaloupe from one Colorado farm destabilized the entire melon industry.
“I mean God forbid to have another recall like this. . . . It just froze the market,” Mohammad Abu-Ghazaleh, chief executive of Fresh Del Monte Produce, said this month in a call with analysts after his company released its quarterly earnings.
Such high-profile recalls can also have a chilling effect on U.S. food exports. The United States exports more food than it imports in part because a growing middle class in emerging markets such as India has boosted demand for U.S. products, Faber said. Having foreign consumers trust U.S. foods is key.
“We’re competing with manufacturers all over the world,” Faber said. “Maintaining and burnishing FDA’s reputation helps us open doors in those markets.”
The illnesses and recalls of the last decade damaged that reputation. In response, Congress adopted the Food Safety Modernization Act late last year — the first major change in food safety laws since 1938.
That law empowers the FDA to prevent food-borne illnesses instead of simply reacting to them. To that end, the legislation would require companies to adopt internationally recognized strategies that would help them spot and consistently test for potential food hazards. It would dramatically increase inspections at food processing plants and farms as well as grant the agency access to companies’ internal records — all of which will require hundreds of new FDA hires.
“You need to put controls in place, validate their effectiveness and monitor that they’re actually working over time,” said Mike Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods. “That’s a system that’s evolved in the food industry but has been adopted piecemeal.”
The law also requires that food imported into this country must meet the same safety standards as food produced domestically, another reason that the U.S. industry pushed hard for FDA funding. About 15 percent of the nation’s food is imported, including nearly two-thirds of fruits and vegetables and 80 percent of seafood, according to the FDA.
“A lot of the motivation for this reform is creating a level playing field,” Taylor said.
Yet, after the legislation was enacted late last year, its funding remained uncertain.
In June, House Republicans cut millions from the FDA’s budget, citing the need to lower the national deficit. Axing the money prompted industry and consumer advocates to redouble their lobbying efforts on behalf of funding the new food safety law.
Ultimately, the cuts were rejected when Senate and House lawmakers met to negotiate differences between their respective agriculture bills, which also determined the funds for USDA and rural development. The FDA got the single largest increase in discretionary spending. Its programs were among only a half dozen that got a year-over-year funding boost.
Researchers Lucy Shackelford and Julie Tate contributed to this report
Food manufacturers know all too well that sugar and spice aren’t all that nice when it comes to combustible dust. Processing potentially explosive materials such as flour and grains, many food plants are considered high-risk for a combustible dust accident and related OSHA fines. For this reason, Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums has launched combustibledustprevention.com, a website that specifically addresses the issues of combustible dust and food safety hazards in the food industry.
Through video, fact sheets, application photos and links to sites like OSHA’s NEP on Combustible Dust, the new website gives manufacturers access to pertinent information regarding combustible dust, fire/explosion prevention and other food safety hazards.
“Even though the industrial sector is now very aware of the risks of combustible dust, they still have many questions,” said Paul Miller, Vice President and General Manager of Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums. “Many manufacturers still aren’t sure if the material in their plants is considered explosive or if their equipment meets OSHA recommendations. Our new website strives to answer some of those questions as they relate to maintenance procedures and explosion-proof vacuums, providing a one-stop site for food manufacturers looking to learn more about combustible dust and food safety hazards.”
For more information, visit combustibledustprevention.com.
OSHA estimates that 30,000 U.S. facilities are at risk for major explosive dust detonations – across all industries. So, the threat of an industrial explosion in your facility is very real.
In addition to OSHA combustible dust regulations, food safety hazards — allergens, insects, rodents, harmful bacteria — cause more than 76 million cases of foodborne illness in the U.S. each year. Food contamination causes recalls that cost food manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars.
But there are steps you can take right now to protect your people and your facility from explosive dust and food safety hazards. That’s why OSHA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends – and in some cases require – manufacturers to use properly-equipped industrial vacuum cleaners. As part of a regular plant maintenance program, OSHA recommends that food manufacturers who process combustible materials like flour, cinnamon or sugar, use a certified explosion-proof or dust ignition-proof vacuum. And, industrial HEPA vacuums are recommended as part of Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures.
Learn more here about avoiding OSHA combustible dust fines and other food safety hazards.
Free Webinar – Increase Food Safety, Reduce Risk, and Achieve Operational Effectiveness and Compliance Tues Feb 8, 2011 11 AM PST/2PM EST Registration: http://www.nwasoft.com/FSMSWebinar4.htm
Free Webinar – Increase Food Safety, Reduce Risk, and Achieve Operational Effectiveness and Compliance
Northwest Analytical brings you The Compliant FSMS webinar series to examine how food processors can deal with regulatory and commercial requirements such as ISO 22000 and the GFSI recognized food safety management systems. The series will enable food industry management to design reasonable strategies to deal with these issues and dependably produce safe food while protecting the company’s brand.
Deborah Kacera, Pilgrim Software, will discuss how following the GFSI scheme’s process requirements yield analytics that foster growth and compliance and support:
• Management Reviews
• Supplier Performance Inputs and Ratings
• Decision-making based on predictive actionable intelligence
• Feedback into your Food Product Design and HACCP Plans
Ms. Kacera is Industry Solutions Director at Pilgrim Software where she is responsible for the company’s CAPA and Complaints management software products and its applications in the food and pharmaceutical industries. She determines specifications for product enhancements, new products and third-party product integration.
Prior to her appointment with Pilgrim, she held positions in manufacturing engineering and management at MTD Technologies, McDonnell Douglas and General Motors. She has worked with the FDA on development of new CDRH eMDR program, providing input into eMDR document requirements to improve the efficiency of the eMDR submission process.
Registration link – http://www.nwasoft.com/FSMSWebinar4.htm