The labor union International Brotherhood of Teamsters has been holding nationwide protests at Chipotle locations this month, taking issue with one of the restaurant chain’s suppliers. The supplier at the focus of the demonstrations is California-based produce company Taylor Farms, which supplies tomatoes and peppers to Chipotle, according to Teamsters.
“Over the past five years, Taylor Farms has had more than 20 food recalls for problems such as Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli. In November 2015, Taylor Farms products containing celery and sold at Costco and other retail outlets were recalled for possible E. coli 0157:H7 contamination,” according to a Teamster news release. “At Taylor Farms’ plant in Tracy, Calif., the company has also committed safety and health violations and violations of laws that protect workers’ rights. Recently, the company settled extensive labor rights violations that involved payments of $267,000 to illegally terminated workers and a required posting in which the company promises to never again violate a long list of employee rights.”
The Teamsters protested at 12 Chipotle locations across the country, following 30 previous protests at Chipotle over the past several months.
Teamster Vice President Rome Aloise points the finger at Chipotle for allowing Taylor Farms to “have a total disregard for consumers’ and workers’ health and safety, as well as workers’ rights,” he said. “Chipotle claims to serve ‘Food With Integrity’, but where’s the integrity when it turns a blind eye to its supplier’s behavior? Chipotle must not cut and run – which would hurt Taylor Farms workers – it must carry out its social responsibility and demand Taylor Farms treat workers fairly and with respect.”
Taylor Farms has not released a statement addressing the protests.
This article was part of our April Fool’s edition. 49% of poll participants thought this story was fake. Alas, it’s true! Better luck next time.
If you plan on visiting Switzerland any time soon, take your beverages without ice. Why? A recent study has found that more than 25% of ice cubes used in bars and restaurants in Switzerland contain bacteria, including E. coli, pseudomonas and enterococci. According to SonntagsBlick, the publication that released the information, the bacteria is an indication of unsanitary ice cube production, namely due to the machines being kept in basements and cellars and not being properly cleaned or maintained.
“Abroad you are always careful with ice,” Sara Stalder, director of a consumer protection group told SonntagsBlick. “But in Switzerland one would never expect one in four ice cubes to exceed legal limits.” Despite the fact that the ice cubes surpassed legal limits in terms of the presence of bacteria, the amount of bacteria isn’t enough to be dangerous to humans.
There was been a significant uptick in the amount of foodborne illness outbreaks and food product recalls (there were more than 500 food product recalls last year), many of which have been caused by dangerous pathogens. As FSMA plays a role in addressing this alarming trend, FDA is making several policy changes that will only continue to intensify. The agency is conducting microbiological profiling both inside food processing facilities during routine inspections and testing large amounts of food at the retail level. In addition, it has launched criminal investigations against food companies distributing products that have the potential to cause human illness. In many of these cases, company executives did not have direct knowledge that their products were causing, or had the potential to cause, illness. Many investigations involve Listeria monocytogenes (LM) found in food processing environments or in food products in commerce. Under FDA’s new approach, the failure to eliminate sporadic LM findings in the environment can subject companies to criminal liability. The immediate challenge to the food industry is to find a more effective solution to identify and reduce pervasive pathogens in the processing environment using pathogen-reduction technologies, while simultaneously employing written food safety protocols that can provide additional protection against criminal sanctions.
PulseNet Makes Foodborne Illness Link
Following the conclusion of the infamous the Jack-In-The Box outbreak that sickened 600 and killed four people more than two decades ago, the federal government recognized that similar outbreaks were probably occurring throughout the country, but there were no viable means of detection. As a result, the CDC created the PulseNet database, a mandatory foodborne illness reporting system to detect and track outbreaks in real time. From there, when a patient tested positive for a pathogen of concern (such as Listeria Monocytogenes, Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7), his or her doctor had to report that finding to the state health department. Each state requests copies of the isolates and tests them for the specific genetic DNA fingerprint of the pathogen of interest. These fingerprints are uploaded to PulseNet, and when indistinguishable genetic DNA fingerprints are uploaded from multiple victims, the CDC can recognize that an outbreak is emerging. The agency shares this information with FDA and other federal, state and local health departments as they work to determine a common source. Despite the fact that most illnesses uploaded to PulseNet remain unsolved, the database has helped CDC and FDA solve hundreds of outbreaks that have affected thousands of victims.
My subsequent columns will look at the emerging challenges faced by the food industry, including recent federal criminal investigations, some solutions designed to assess environmental contamination and reduce pathogens, and strategies that you can employ to reduce criminal liability.
The CDC has declared the Chipotle E. coli outbreaks over. As for its origin(s), we may never know. Yesterday the CDC provided its latest and final update regarding the two outbreaks, stating that investigators used whole genome sequencing to dig a bit deeper, and isolates tested from those sickened in the second outbreak (sickened five people in three states) were not genetically related to isolates from the people who fell ill in the initial outbreak (55 sickened in 11 states, with 21 hospitalizations).
“We are pleased to have this behind us and can place our full energies to implementing our enhanced food safety plan that will establish Chipotle as an industry leader in food safety,” said Steve Ells, founder, chairman and co-CEO of Chipotle in a company statement. “We are extremely focused on executing this program, which designs layers of redundancy and enhanced safety measures to reduce the food safety risk to a level as near to zero as is possible. By adding these programs to an already strong and proven food culture, we strongly believe that we can establish Chipotle as a leader in food safety just as we have become a leader in our quest for the very best ingredients we can find.”
While the outbreaks “appear” to be over, the fact that the source will remain a mystery is a bit unsettling. All the CDC can tell us is that the “likely” source was a common meal item or ingredient served at Chipotle Mexican Grill. Regulatory officials simply cannot trace a food or ingredient to the outbreak. “When a restaurant serves foods with several ingredients that are mixed or cooked together and then used in multiple menu items, it can be more difficult for epidemiologic studies to identity the specific ingredient that is contaminated,” according to the CDC’s final update on the outbreak.
The most recent reported illness started on December 1, 2015. No deaths were reported as a result of either of the outbreaks.
Today Chipotle released its Q4 2015 earnings, reporting a 6.8% decrease in revenue ($997.5 million) compared to Q4 2014. However, 2015 revenue increased 9.6% over 2014.
The problems are not over for the restaurant chain either. On January 28, Chipotle was served another subpoena that broadened the scope of the existing DOJ investigation. The company stated the following in a release, “The new subpoena requires us to produce documents and information related to company-wide food safety matters dating back to January 1, 2013, and supersedes the subpoena served in December 2015 that was limited to a single Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley, California. We intend to fully cooperate in the investigation.”
As of late, the problems for Chipotle have been endless. 2015 was a year of several Salmonella, norovirus and E. coli outbreaks for the restaurant chain. With the first full week of the new year wrapped up, 2016 is off to perhaps an even rockier start, with news of the company being hit with both a class action lawsuit and a federal grand jury subpoena.
Company stockholder Susie Ong filed a civil complaint against Chipotle on January 8, stating that the company made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that its “quality controls were inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health.” Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint calls out a norovirus outbreak that occurred in August in Simi Valley, California; a Salmonella outbreak in Minnesota that sickened 64 people; the closure of all company restaurants in Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington in November following an E.coli outbreak; and the highly-publicized norovirus outbreak that sickened more than 140 students from Boston College in Brighton, Massachusetts last month.
Ong’s complaint also mentions the federal grand jury subpoena, which Chipotle made public two days prior (January 6) in an SEC filing. Served in December, the subpoena is part of a criminal investigation by FDA and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California into the Simi Valley norovirus outbreak, which sickened about 100 patrons and employees (some reports state that more than 200 people fell ill). Ong’s lawsuit states that health inspectors found “dirty and inoperative equipment, equipment directly linked to the sewer, and other sanitary and health violations” at the Simi Valley restaurant.
With December’s norovirus outbreak in Brighton and the CDC’s announcement that it was further investigating five new cases of E. coli that were reported the month prior, restaurant sales were down 30% for the month, according to the SEC filing. Ong adds up all of these unfortunate events in the lawsuit, stating, “As a result of defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.”
Chipotle has not yet publicly commented on the lawsuit.
Earlier in December, Chipotle called attention to improvements it was making to its food safety program by bringing in IEH Laboratories and Consulting Group to reevaluate its processes in an effort to prevent future outbreaks. Clearly that was not enough.
Food companies take heed. 2016 is off with a bang, and not in a good way. Last week industry was also buzzing about the DOJ’s investigation into Blue Bell Creameries over the deadly Listeria outbreak. FDA and the other federal powers-that-be are making it very clear that negligence will no longer be tolerated (Or should I say, alleged negligence, in this case). Compliance, accountability, and above all, ethical behavior are at the heart of the matter.
Will it all come tumbling down for Chipotle? It remains to be seen whether the company will be able to recover from these issues. And maybe an even bigger question is, who will be next?
After bringing in IEH Laboratories and Consulting Group to reevaluate its practices after an E.coli outbreak that sickened dozens, Chipotle Mexican Grill announced it is implementing a program to ensure it achieves “the highest level of safety possible”. According to a press release issued today, Chipotle is enhancing its food safety program and taking the following actions:
Conducting high-resolution DNA-based testing of all fresh produce prior to shipment to restaurants
Conducting end-of-shelf-life testing of ingredient samples to ensure quality specifications are maintained throughout ingredient shelf life
Engaging in continuous improvements throughout its supply chain leveraging test result data to measure its vendor and supplier performance
Improving internal employee training related to food safety and food handling
The CDC and FDA investigation of the E. coli outbreak is ongoing and the source of the outbreak is still unknown.
In ongoing efforts to eliminate foodborne illness, the FDA recently issued the next step in rules designed for the enforcement of FSMA. The rules are aimed at modernizing food manufacturing processes after a wave of deadly outbreaks in the past decade stemming from contaminated cantaloupes, apples, spinach, lettuce, peanut butter, ice cream, cucumbers and other products. The rules require companies to draw up and implement written plans for keeping food safe. An important part of any food safety plan is the implementation of methods to verify that the controls put in place are working.
The food industry faces many challenges in meeting these new regulations. Two significant technical challenges for control verification are that the testing process takes too long and the sampling plans are often inadequate.
The pathogen testing process for all commercially available diagnostic tests requires an upfront culture or growth step to allow any pathogens present to multiply to a level that they can be detected by the test in use. This growth step, referred to by microbiologists as enrichment, is especially challenging in heavily processed foods and environmental samples, because the bacteria present in the sample have been stressed and are not in a rapid growth phase at the time of sampling. Advances in diagnostic sensitivity and robustness have reduced the amount of time required for enrichment from three or more days with traditional methods to about 24 hours on average with rapid methods. Even with rapidly growing and low-stress organisms such as E. coli O157:H7, enrichments take more than eight hours before implementing the diagnostic. The time required for this growth step creates a bottleneck in the production and distribution process. Although diagnostic companies are continuously improving the sensitivity of their methods and new methods are constantly being developed, there are practical limitations that have thus far prevented the elimination of the upfront culture step prior to testing. Historically, improvements in the sensitivity of rapid food pathogen diagnostics have been traded for time. In other words, having a more sensitive test means that fewer bacteria are needed for detection and therefore, less time is needed for bacteria to divide during the enrichment step. Some commercially available assays require as few as 1,000 to 10,000 target cells in the sample for detection. Since the purpose of the enrichment step is to increase the number of target pathogens in the sample to a detectable limit and bacteria reproduce by cell division, further diagnostic sensitivity improvements would need to be greater than ten-fold to have a significant impact on further reducing enrichment times.
Unreliable sampling methods are an even bigger issue for industry. An example demonstrating current practice is a field of 40,000 heads of lettuce with four (.01% of the total) heads of lettuce contaminated by a pathogen. The current best practice is to go into the field and collect 60 (.15% of the total) leaves from the heads of lettuce, mash them together and test them for contamination. The probability of this sampling method finding the four contaminated heads of lettuce in the sample is much less than 1%. When the undiscovered four heads of lettuce are washed with the other 39,996 heads of lettuce, cross contamination occurs and people get sick.
Technology advances that reduce or eliminate the requirement for enrichment and make the sampling process more reliable could have a big impact on improving control verification testing. But, those advances need to be delivered in a practical and affordable manner. I recently learned about a technology that has great potential to make improvements on both of these fronts, especially for the produce industry and any process that is able to use a wash step as a control point. The recently patented OmniFresh sampling system (developed by OmniFresh, LLC) concentrates a sample from the food processing wash water, allowing immediate testing representative of the food being processed. The concentration process is performed during the entire washing cycle for a lot and is consequently representative of the entire lot.
Concentration technology has been used for many years by academic researchers and scientists to collect samples for biological testing. Ultrafiltration methods for concentrating samples have typically used smaller sample sizes in the 1-10 liter range. The OmniFresh system allows for very large samples to be concentrated, typical volumes of 400 liters are concentrated to 50 ml.
The concentration process takes about one hour to complete after the first wash cycle. During processing, a side stream of water from the first wash tank is diverted to the concentrator unit. Tens to hundreds of gallons of wash water, depending on the size of the wash tank and the type and amount of produce being washed, flows into the concentrator. Throughout the sample collection period, large particulates are removed through a course filtration. Using ultra-filtration, bacteria and other small particles are isolated from the large volume of wash water into a much smaller, concentrated final sample. This concentrated sample can then be tested directly by a diagnostic test, eliminating the need for enrichment.1
The OmniFresh System with diagnostic platform installed at a processing facility. (Click to enlarge)
The wash water in the tank comes into contact with all of the produce being washed, the majority of bacteria is removed from the produce, and it then enters the wash water.2-4 This process, combined with the continuous sampling of wash water, means that low levels of intermittent contamination can be detected without testing high numbers of samples. Field testing of the OmniFresh System has returned promising results. The ability to rapidly screen produce for contamination could also provide a practical lot definition instead of cumbersome field-based definitions that can impact multiple processors.
Improvements in sample preparation and sampling technologies have much to offer the industry. Improved sampling methods which are representative of entire lots identify contaminated food earlier and with high confidence. Additionally, the negative test result is of much higher quality and will result in an increase in the overall confidence of the food supply.
The OmniFresh technology is one example of the type of improvements that are needed. More research that focuses on these most challenging aspects of control verification testing is needed.
References
Dyer, M.A. (2009). “New biosensors for food safety screening solutions.” SPIE.
Beuchat, L. R., and Ryu, J.-H. (1997). “Produce Processing Practices,” Emerg. Infect. Dis 3 (4), 459-465.
Sapers, G. M, (2001). “Efficacy of washing and sanitizing methods for disinfection of fresh fruit and vegetable products,” Food Technol. Biotechnol. 39 (4), 305-311.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1998). “Water: Control of Potential Hazards: Wash Water.” Chap. II.B.2.3 in Guide to minimize microbial food safety hazards for fresh fruits and vegetables, by US FDA.
Chicago-based El Cubano Wholesale Meats is recalling 169,620 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 according to the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
The products subject to recall bear the establishment number “EST. 4653a” inside the USDA mark of inspection and establishment name “Iowa Best Beef”. The products were distributed by establishment “El Cubano” to retail stores and restaurants in Chicago.
Labels of the products have a “For Cooking Only” instructional statement. Product bearing the instructional or disclaimer statement can only be distributed to other official/inspected establishments that have an appropriate production process. Such a disclaimer is an indication that the product has not been tested for E. coli O157:H7 and implies that the pathogen may be a food safety hazard reasonably likely to occur in the product in the absence of controls.
The problem was discovered by IDOA personnel during routine inspection. The Illinois Department of Agriculture is concerned that some product may be frozen in restaurants/retail store freezers.
A special Working Group has determined that a reduction in O157 could be achieved in two ways: one, by the Agency improving how FSIS inspection personnel verify plant performance of sanitary dressing procedures, and two, by improving the information available to industry on how sanitary dressing should be performed.
Reduction of E. coli O157 illnesses since the mid-1990’s has been one of the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s greatest public health successes, with illnesses having dropped by over 50 percent since 1998. While overall illnesses are down significantly, the most recently available outbreak data shows a slight increase in illnesses from this dangerous pathogen. FSIS’ Strategic Performance Working Group (SPWG) has released a six-point strategy to turn the trend back in the right direction.
The SPWG includes professionals from across FSIS, including field personnel, microbiologists, and policymakers who come together periodically to tackle serious and stubborn challenges that limit the Agency’s successful performance of its mission. The SPWG previously developed the Salmonella Action Plan, which has been the agency’s blueprint for tackling Salmonella since December 2013. Now the SPWG is also recommending a multipronged approach to address pathogenic E. coli in beef slaughterhouses.
The SPWG determined that a reduction in O157 could be achieved in two ways. First, the Agency needs to improve how FSIS inspection personnel verify plant performance of sanitary dressing procedures through better training, more correlations, and developing a standard to assess industry’s performance of sanitary dressing. Drawing on the experience of its members, the SPWG also stated that the training would be most effective if it included photographs and real-world scenarios to effectively illustrate the issues discussed in the documents.
Second, the SPWG recommended improving the information available to industry on how sanitary dressing should be performed. The SPWG said the Agency could do so by publishing a guide containing suggestions for best practices.
More detailed information about the SPWG’s findings and recommendations mentioned here can be found on the FSIS website at Strategic Performance Working Group: Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Findings. We are confident in this approach and look forward to being able to report lower illness numbers as a result of this report and future issues that the SPWG will work to address.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for these cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
We also use cookies to store your preferences regarding the setting of 3rd Party Cookies.
If you visit and/or use the FST Training Calendar, cookies are used to store your search terms, and keep track of which records you have seen already. Without these cookies, the Training Calendar would not work.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Cookie Policy
A browser cookie is a small piece of data that is stored on your device to help websites and mobile apps remember things about you. Other technologies, including Web storage and identifiers associated with your device, may be used for similar purposes. In this policy, we say “cookies” to discuss all of these technologies.
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect and use information from and about you when you use This website and certain other Innovative Publishing Co LLC services. This policy explains more about how we use cookies and your related choices.
How We Use Cookies
Data generated from cookies and other behavioral tracking technology is not made available to any outside parties, and is only used in the aggregate to make editorial decisions for the websites. Most browsers are initially set up to accept cookies, but you can reset your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent by visiting this Cookies Policy page. If your cookies are disabled in the browser, neither the tracking cookie nor the preference cookie is set, and you are in effect opted-out.
In other cases, our advertisers request to use third-party tracking to verify our ad delivery, or to remarket their products and/or services to you on other websites. You may opt-out of these tracking pixels by adjusting the Do Not Track settings in your browser, or by visiting the Network Advertising Initiative Opt Out page.
You have control over whether, how, and when cookies and other tracking technologies are installed on your devices. Although each browser is different, most browsers enable their users to access and edit their cookie preferences in their browser settings. The rejection or disabling of some cookies may impact certain features of the site or to cause some of the website’s services not to function properly.
Individuals may opt-out of 3rd Party Cookies used on IPC websites by adjusting your cookie preferences through this Cookie Preferences tool, or by setting web browser settings to refuse cookies and similar tracking mechanisms. Please note that web browsers operate using different identifiers. As such, you must adjust your settings in each web browser and for each computer or device on which you would like to opt-out on. Further, if you simply delete your cookies, you will need to remove cookies from your device after every visit to the websites. You may download a browser plugin that will help you maintain your opt-out choices by visiting www.aboutads.info/pmc. You may block cookies entirely by disabling cookie use in your browser or by setting your browser to ask for your permission before setting a cookie. Blocking cookies entirely may cause some websites to work incorrectly or less effectively.
The use of online tracking mechanisms by third parties is subject to those third parties’ own privacy policies, and not this Policy. If you prefer to prevent third parties from setting and accessing cookies on your computer, you may set your browser to block all cookies. Additionally, you may remove yourself from the targeted advertising of companies within the Network Advertising Initiative by opting out here, or of companies participating in the Digital Advertising Alliance program by opting out here.
