Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Food safety pitfall: No consistent scrutiny

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Food safety pitfall: No consistent scrutiny
  • Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:45:05 -0700


Food safety pitfall: No consistent scrutiny
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/40999767.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDU

oaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUsX
By DAVID SHAFFER, Star Tribune
March 9, 2009

Ask any food safety expert how to prevent food-borne illnesses, and the
answer almost always includes a method invented in Minnesota to keep
astronauts from getting sick in space.

The idea: Food makers must identify the riskiest steps in processing each
kind of food and systematically attack the pathogens at those critical
junctures.

Food scientists say the deadly salmonella outbreak linked to the Peanut
Corp. of America (PCA) shows why such preventive measures should be
mandatory across the food industry.

Under the government's fragmented regulation of food safety, some
industries, such as meat and seafood, are required to have science-based
programs to keep harmful germs out. For most other food processors, such
programs are voluntary.

Makers of fresh juice and canned vegetables have to follow preventive
control efforts, but not those that package fresh lettuce and spinach.
Almond processors must comply with salmonella-prevention requirements
imposed in 2007. The peanut industry doesn't.

The PCA processing plant in Blakely, Ga., linked to the salmonella outbreak
wasn't required to have a hazard-control program "and to our knowledge, did
not have one," Arty Schronce, spokesman for the Georgia Department of
Agriculture, said in an e-mail.

It's not known how many plants don't bother with food-safety protocols
developed nearly 50 years ago at Pillsbury. Large food makers have widely
embraced the practice, said Francisco Diez, an associate professor of food
safety microbiology at the University of Minnesota.

For others, "the government has relied on self-policing by the industry,
but the case of PCA shows that self-policing is not sufficient," Diez said.

A long time coming

Even food industry groups say that Congress should require every
manufacturer to have a food safety plan.

"What we want is to make sure that, first of all, a company is required to
actually look at what they are doing, identify where the hazards are and
propose doing something about it," said Robert Brackett, chief science and
regulatory officer for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, one of 10
industry groups that wrote to Congress in January urging changes in federal
law.

That might happen in the wake of the latest salmonella outbreak, which
sickened 677 people, nine of whom died, including three in Minnesota. More
than 3,200 products containing peanuts have been recalled, and Peanut Corp.
of America has closed plants, filed for bankruptcy and faces a criminal
investigation.

A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate that was introduced last week would
require all food processors to have prevention plans to address food-borne
hazards. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., one of the bill's sponsors, said it
stands a good chance of passing.

The concept of hazard-prevention dates back to 1959, when the late Howard
Bauman, the long-time Pillsbury food safety director, got a call from the
government.

"The idea was to make sure the astronauts don't have food poisoning," said
Prof. Ted Labuza, a University of Minnesota food scientist who knew Bauman.
"You can't have astronauts vomiting or with diarrhea."

Labuza said Bauman and other scientists realized that inspecting and
testing the food wouldn't be enough. Instead, they believed food makers
should identify hazardous steps during processing, and apply the best
science, controls and monitoring to reduce risk. The original name of the
concept is a mouthful: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system.
It's usually shortened to HACCP, pronounced has-sip, or called preventive
control.

The Food and Drug Administration soon got interested. Minnesota food
scientists trained the first federal inspectors in the method when it was
mandated for botulism prevention in the canning industry in 1973. It would
be nearly a quarter century before the government expanded
preventive-control regulations to the meat, poultry and seafood industries.

A complex science

Keeping pathogens out of food sounds simple. In practice, it requires
rigorous science, and often results in extra expense and paperwork for
companies.

"Yes, it's burdensome," said Dr. David Acheson, FDA associate commissioner
for food protection. "...[B]ut not nearly as burdensome as when that food
makes somebody sick and you get put out business."
Unless companies embrace hazard prevention, the programs don't do much
good, experts say. "The big question is who is going to enforce it?" said
Diez, the university food scientist. "Companies can say they have HACCP
plan, but a HACCP plan doesn't work if it isn't actually used, or isn't
used properly."

The methods to control food hazards vary widely. They can range from simple
steps like changing how food is stored, to efforts like improving
temperature sensors. Then there are costly programs that require
redesigning equipment for a production line. For some foods, like leafy
vegetables, the science hasn't caught up with the risk. At least 20
outbreaks of dangerous E. coli have been traced to fresh spinach or lettuce
over the past 12 years, yet there is no method to kill bacteria in raw
vegetables, experts say.

For companies, complying with the rules can mean hiring consultants,
trainers, even lawyers.

That's what Coastal Seafoods, a Twin Cities fresh fish processor,
discovered two years ago. The FDA took the Minneapolis company to court,
not because anything was found wrong with its products, but because
inspectors said the company's hazard-control plan didn't comply with
government standards.

Eventually the company hired a food safety expert to write a better plan.
The company also installed specialized monitoring equipment, including
better sensors to make minute-by-minute temperature checks during
shipments.

The monitoring data, roughly 30 to 70 pages per week, has "confirmed that
our quality control was good," said general manager Tim Lauer.

"The idea is great," he said. But getting a hazard-control plan approved
had many bumps.

"It seemed like the goal was clear, but the way to go about and satisfy the
different inspections was not as clear," he said.

Things didn't go as well for a former rival, Captain's Select Seafood.
Carolyn Young, the former president, said she spent $50,000 on legal and
other expenses, even hiring an industry consultant to twice revise the
Minneapolis firm's hazard-control plan. But the FDA rejected it, so she
closed the business.

"We were not irresponsible -- we supplied some of the best restaurants in
town," Young said.






  • [Livingontheland] Food safety pitfall: No consistent scrutiny, Tradingpost, 03/10/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page