Stephen Ostroff, M.D. will keynote at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium on November 29 | Learn moreEarlier this month Stephen Ostroff, M.D., deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA, told attendees at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium about the agency’s commitment to a proactive food safety system. He also discussed FDA’s stance on criminal liability and took questions from the audience, one of which was: Now that the FSMA rules are final, are they cast in stone? Does FDA have any flexibility in making changes. Listen to Ostroff’s answer in the following video.
Earlier this week ConAgra Grocery Products, LLC, a subsidiary of ConAgra Foods, Inc., was sentenced to pay $11.2 million after pleading guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge related to shipping peanut butter contaminated with Salmonella. The $8 million criminal fine and forfeiture of $3.2 million in assets is the largest fine ever paid in a food safety case, according to the Department of Justice.
“This case demonstrates companies – both large and small – must be vigilant about food safety,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division in a release. “We rely every day on food processors and handlers to meet the high standards required to keep our food free of harmful contamination.”
WATCH THE VIDEO: Stephen Ostroff, M.D., FDA deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine discussed the agency’s take on criminal liability at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium
ConAgra admitted that it introduced contaminated Peter Pan and private label peanut butter into interstate commerce (produced and shipped from the company’s facility in Sylvester, Georgia) during an outbreak of Salmonellosis in 2006. The company also admitted that it had been previously aware of the risk of Salmonella contamination in peanut butter dating back to 2004. Among the culprits of the contamination (as identified by company employees) were an old peanut roaster that did not uniformly heat the raw peanuts, a sugar silo damaged by a storm, and a leaky roof that permitted moisture to enter the facility, followed by airflow that may have pushed the contamination throughout the plant.
The company tried to address some of the issues, but the DOJ stated that ConAgra did not fully correct the situation until after the 2006–2007 outbreak. “While ConAgra did take corrective action eventually, by failing to timely recognize and rectify the problem of salmonella contamination, this company damaged the health of both public consumers and of the agricultural industry overall. I commend my staff, that of the Consumer Protection Branch of the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the investigators of the FDA, for the excellent work by all in bringing this incident to this conclusion and I hope that it will serve as a reminder to others in the industry of the high cost of failing to protect the public that relies on them to properly meet this responsibility.”
Many people associate terrorism with spectacular attacks such as those that occurred on September 11. However, lone wolf attacks are far more likely to happen in what has unfortunately become the new normal. “The last thing on your mind is a terrorist being interested in food. It does exist, and bad guys do have an interest in this area,” said Special Agent Scott Mahloch, weapons of mass destruction coordinator for the Chicago division of the FBI during the Food Safety Consortium last week. What does this mean for the food industry?
SA Scott Mahloch will present FBI’s Role in Food Defense on November 29 at the 2017 Food Safety Consortium | Learn moreAccording to the Department of Homeland Security, with 2.2 million farms and 900,000 restaurants in the United States, the food and agricultural sector accounts for 1/5 of the national economic activity. There are several industry targets for terrorism: Food processing facilities; food storage and distribution; restaurants, grocery stores and markets; commercial facilities; and cruise lines.
While Mahloch emphasized that there is no imminent threat to the food sector, one of the biggest areas of concern for this particular industry is the insider threat. “The insider threat is that person [who] knows the facilities, processes, distribution network and can cause the greatest impact,” said Mahloch. This can be in the form of a disgruntled employee who has or can gain access to equipment or other areas of a facility that would otherwise be secure and then introduce contaminants into food products. Mahloch stressed the important role that a food company plays in monitoring employees and reporting any deviation from normal behavior. This is not an easy task—in fact, it is the most difficult threat to detect, and the most difficult threat to protect against, Mahloch pointed out.
Insider Threat: The threat posed by an individual who exploits his/her position, credentials or employment to achieve trusted access to the means, processes, equipment, material, location, facility and/or target necessary to carry out a terrorist action.
The likelihood of an employee becoming an insider threat increases with a variety of personal factors, including financial need, feelings of anger or revenge, being a sympathizer with terrorist ideology, having problems at work, compulsive and destructive behavior, ego and family issues. Food organizations also open themselves up to vulnerabilities via the following:
Allowing easy access to restricted or sensitive areas within a facility (i.e., not limiting personnel access to certain areas or clearly labeling access controls)
Failure to have physical security controls over personal items that are either brought into or taken from the workplace
Vague security policies/Lax security perception
High employee turnover
Lack of proper employee vetting
Failure to train employees in proper security protocols
Failure to have consequences for violating security policy
Surveillance
When assessing the insider threat, what should food companies look for in an effort to protect their facility and products? “You’re the first line of defense,” said Mahloch. “We get a lot of phone calls where people run things by us. If something doesn’t seem right, say something.” He provided several key behaviors that may be characterized as suspicious in some instances:
Someone taking a photograph or video, or notes/sketches, of food processing operations or sensitive areas
Someone attempting to gain information about company operations, especially related to security and personnel, in person, or by phone or email
Someone conducting surveillance of self services areas such as salad bars, condiment stands or open bulk containers
Shipping area: Unscheduled deliveries, driver who is unfamiliar with facility delivery protocols, items left on dock at unusual hours, illegally parked or unattended vehicles, or shipping documents that don’t match
Be Proactive
Companies can take several preventive steps to protect their facilities, products and personnel. Proactive measures include:
Monitoring products for evidence of tampering, resealing or damage
Securing open containers of food or ingredients in storage areas
Controlling access to specific areas of facility by delivery personnel, employees, vendors and contractors, and general visitors
Securing loading dock area, and standardize delivery and pickup protocol
Developing a written food defense plan
Training employees, contractors and vendors to recognize suspicious activity and report it accordingly
Take Action
It’s important to stay alert and be aware—employee observations are critical, said Mahloch. Once suspicious activity is observed, the facility security officer or manager should be notified, and from there a decision can be made on whether external parties need to be involved. In general, state and local partners investigate an incident before the FBI gets involved.
“When it comes to intentional contamination [or a] terrorist incident—that’s an area that we investigate and ultimately prosecute,” said Mahloch. He emphasized the FBI is not a regulatory agency, so it would not show up at a facility due to a company’s lack of compliance to FSMA, for example. The agency is interested in food defense and intentional contamination that has the purpose of causing harm.
For more information about the FBI’s role in food defense, the agency has a document on its website that summarizes food defense for the industry, including some of the above-mentioned factors to look for when trying to identifying suspicious behavior. If a company wants to report suspicious activity that is not an emergency, it can call 1-855-TELL-FBI (1-855-835-5324).
Over the past year and a half, much attention has been given the federal government’s commitment to prioritizing prosecution of food companies that engage in criminal behavior. In some instances, this has been used as a scare tactic, shining a spotlight on the executive responsibility of company executives. Although focusing on executive liability isn’t necessarily a bad thing, Stephen Ostroff, M.D., deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA, wants food manufacturers to know that FDA isn’t out to get them.
During yesterday’s opening keynote presentation at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium, Ostroff commented on FDA’s approach to enforcement. “I often have to scratch my head as why this has been such a tremendous concern in a regulated industry…sitting at FDA, we have not had any change in our thinking and approach about liability,” said Ostroff. “FDA pursues legal action against companies that are clearly negligent and clearly violating the law.” He emphasized that FDA’s goal moving into the FSMA compliance phase hasn’t changed; it’s about implementing a food safety system focused on preventive controls.
Ostroff encouraged attendees to look at the areas in which their food safety system is vulnerable, take proactive action and build redundancies into their system. “The best defense is to comply with the new requirements, and document how you are creating a food safety culture where everyone understands the expectations,” he added. “If you’re making a good faith attempt—our goal is to help you accomplish that goal, not to punish you for the attempts that you’ve made in good faith.”
The deputy commissioner also commented on the agency’s progress since FSMA’s seven rules were finalized in May, pointing out that these rules are foundational, and additional rules are to come. These rules will address lab accreditation, traceability related to imported products and a reportable food registry tool.
“If when we visit we identify very significant food safety hazards that we think pose an imminent risk of foodborne illness, we will have to take action.” – Stephen Ostroff, M.D.
Other key areas Ostroff discussed regarding agency progress and initiatives included:
Initial compliance date for FSMA Preventive Controls Rule (for large companies). FDA wants to be a partner in assisting companies with the preventive controls requirements. “That for us will require a lot of work on the part of those who are going to be conducting these inspections, but our goal is to help you and tell you in which areas you’re doing quite well and in which areas you can do better,” said Ostroff, adding that many of the aspects of the preventive controls rule are very similar to what many companies have already done.
Foodborne outbreaks. With several outbreaks in the 2015–2016 timeframe (ice cream–Listeriosis; cilantro–cyclospora; cucumbers–Salmonellosis; Mexican-style fast food–E.coli O26; flour–E.coli O121), the Inspector General expressed concern over the FDA recall process and criticized the agency for not having better defined timeframes. In response to that report, FDA implemented the SCORE (Strategic Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation) team, which guides concrete action plans for measures that the agency must take in the areas of recalls, for example. The team consists of decision makers from key operations and enforcement offices with a goal of expediting the evaluation of compliance and enforcement options. Since April, SCORE has addressed flour contaminated with peanut protein, facilities contaminated with Listeria, Salmonella in pistachios, and baby food that was not manufactured in compliance with infant formula regulations.
Antimicrobial resistance. The issue is “getting attention at the highest levels of government,” said Ostroff, adding that the best way to address antimicrobial resistance is to not have to treat it in the first place—and to do this is through reducing the incidence foodborne illness. The agency is moving forward in several areas here, including addressing non-judicial use of food animals and veterinary settings; enhancing NARMS data and isolate collection; and collecting data on antimicrobial sales by species.
Attendees listen to Stephen Ostroff, M.D., deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA, give the keynote presentation at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium.
During the Town Hall part of the presentation, Ostroff was asked, with the finalization of the FSMA rules, are they cast in stone? His answer: Not necessarily. “It took five years to get in place…because we did it in a very systematic way with a lot of stakeholder input. When you put together rules that are this complicated, there’s no guarantee that you got everything right,” he said. “[We] have to recognize that sometimes some of the flaws don’t become apparent into you implement them. You always have to be of the mindset that if everything didn’t work out exactly the way things were anticipated…we always have to be open to the fact that as we move forward and implement the rules, we might have to make course corrections.”
Last night STOP Foodborne Illness recognized food safety heroes for their dedication to food safety. The fundraiser was held during the 2016 Food Safety Consortium.
Jeff Almer received the Food Safety Hero award for his work in bringing attention to the Salmonella outbreak involving Peanut Corporation of America. The illness took the life of Almer’s mother. Almer received the award from Gina Kramer, executive director of Savour Food Safety International.Dan Sutton (left) and Scott Horsfall (right) accepted the Food Safety Training Award on behalf of California Leafy Green Marketing Association from Deirdre Schlunegger (middle), CEO of STOP Foodborne Illness.Robert Tauxe, M.D., MPH, deputy director of the CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases received the Advancing Science for Food Safety Award.
Attend the Food Safety Supply Chain Conference, June 5–6, 2017 in Rockville, MD | LEARN MOREA recent study from The Hartman Group on the topic of transparency found that consumers are becoming more concerned about imports and the safety standards behind companies producing food and beverage products beyond U.S. borders.
So with the drastic rise in consumer expectations for food quality and safety in the past few years, how can companies ensure they’re mitigating risks in the supply chain while fostering transparency to meet consumer expectations?
To our benefit, the focus of the broader food industry and the government, as well as innovations in technology, are making it easier than ever to comprehensively track the supply chain.
Another Day, Another Food Recall, Another Listeria Scare
In today’s reality, whether we like it or not, food recalls are an inevitable part of the food industry, and adulteration in the supply chain is a key safety issue. With the wellbeing of consumers at stake, if a contamination finds its way into a brand’s supply chain, the best possible course of action is to take action on a recall using impeccable supply chain records and monitor the affected product moving throughout the chain.
With recalls being here to stay in the food industry, companies need to be prepared to handle these issues quickly and effectively. By implementing supplier management and whole-chain traceability software, allergens and impurities can be pinpointed to a specific lot of product as opposed to being limited to processing/issue date, and not knowing the source or country of origin of every ingredient (as many suppliers can contribute to one product) within the supply chain.
Additionally, with these technologies, brands can keep their supply chain transparent and compliant with growing industry regulations. With consumer standards on the line, proactive transparency can ensure that a company has a plan of attack when the inevitable hits.
A Targeted and Precise Plan
Companies and brands need to broaden their definition of food safety in order to manage and satisfy an expanded set of consumer expectations. The traditional, linear “one-up and one-back” (OUOB) approach to supply chain is no longer acceptable when it comes to comprehensive supply chain transparency.
Consumers need a targeted and precise plan when dealing with the safety of their food—it’s no longer just about whether the food safe to eat. The definition has expanded to include safety around ingredients and country of origin. Awareness of where a product came from and where it is going next is not an acceptable method if a company wishes to foster transparency with customers and effectively manage recalls. In addition, these standards are emphasized by federal regulations like the FSMA and FSVP—the industry is now shifting towards preventative approaches to safety matters, as opposed to reactive. FSMA requires food manufacturers to increase focus on prevention rather than response to contamination incidents, which will require a comprehensive view of the entire supply chain.
Brands will need to develop strong food safety plans with streamlined audits and compliance records, verifying supply chain partners and executing corrective actions for suppliers that are not in compliance with the process and food safety plan set in place. In establishing this process, having the technology to support it is paramount in ensuring that suppliers are sticking to the food safety practices necessary to follow industry regulation and exceed consumer expectation.
Transparency in Today’s Complex Food Paradigm
As the global food supply continues to grow in volume and complexity, brands have an opportunity and an obligation to adapt to the food paradigm. According to a Label Insight study, 94% of consumers say transparency from food brands is the #1 factor that impacts purchase. Brands are no longer able to blame a supplier’s lack of transparency or unreliable records for exposing consumers to unsafe products but instead, the brand is solely held accountable.
Transparency and proactivity were optional in the past, but are now established as fundamental components of a brand’s safety plan if they are to adapt to the changing industry landscape as well as consumer demand. As recalls are bound to happen, proactivity and transparency can ensure that a company is one step ahead of an outbreak at all times.
The fact is, adapting to this shifting environment and aligning with these best practices and the technologies that enable them is critical to the success of the supplier, distributor and across the whole supply chain. Food companies must look to utilize big data analytics and intelligent supply chain mapping technologies in order to improve transparency and increase traceability. With the ability to track ingredients back and forth across the supply chain, these technologies enable a safer consumer experience as well as provide tremendous business value in eliminating inefficiencies, managing supply chain issues, and effectively protecting the brand with the insights offered.
By Gregory Siragusa, Douglas Marshall, Ph.D. No Comments
DNA sequencing can be used to determine the names, types, and proportions of microorganisms, the component species in a food sample, and track foodborne disease agents. Here we introduce a column exploring aspects and applications of these new techniques, known collectively as food genomics. Each month we will provide take-home knowledge in which every food safety scientist should be familiar.
Gregory Siragusa will be presenting Microbiome Applications in Controlling Food Spoilage and Safety during the 2016 Food Safety Consortium
We live in an exciting time of great change in all of biological and food sciences. In fact, it is not an overstatement to claim that a large portion of the fields of food science, biology, agriculture and medicine will be reformed in what has been called the post-genomics era or simply the genomics era. Food science and food microbiology are major players in this pack and moving in the fast track of these changes. This game-changing technology is fueled by the convergence of two rapidly evolving fields: DNA sequencing and the analysis of that sequencing data (i.e., bioinformatics).
The common jargon uses the acronym NGS for Next Generation Sequencing. NGS refers to the most updated automated DNA sequencing technology available. In several ways, sequencing can be considered a commodity service; hence its price has dropped and its availability is now widespread. What does this mean? A useful analogy is the following: Think of trying to publish a book you wrote. Would you go out, buy a printing press, paper, ink, binding machinery, and produce thousands of copies of your book, or, would you go to a professional printer and get them to print and manufacture copies? For most, the simplicity and experience of the professional print master trumps the do-it-yourself route. Once sequence data is obtained, what is next in the process of using that data? Analysis of sequence data is a specialized field called bioinformatics and has its own expert practitioners. It is a field of study that is a hybrid combination of mathematics, statistics, computer science, and biology. Bioinformatics analyzes the very large datasets produced by NGS and will be increasingly dependent on the internet cloud for its utility to be fully realized.
How will food genomics impact food safety and quality? How will it help in identifying the sources of outbreaks in a fraction of the time it once took? What will this mean for zero-tolerance, for pathogen control, and for responsibilities and liabilities of food producers and processors? There is a growing body of examples and literature that begins to apply genomics and microbiomics to the quality of food and sources of its microbial populations.5-7
Over the course of this column, we will be exploring several examples to alert the reader to the myriad of uses of genomics for solving food production issues.
Genomics (NGS and Bioinformatics) are the basis of the US-FDA GenomeTrakr program.1 Genomics offers an alternative means to serotype Salmonella isolates using DNA sequencing.2 There are several examples of using sequencing of solving the epidemiological source of foodborne microbial outbreaks by comparing the entire bacterial genomes of clinical and food isolates.3,4
One powerful application of genomics is to conduct the census of microbial communities to identify the microbial members and their relative proportions, an outcome called a microbiome, all from a single tube! The technique itself is termed microbiomics. Just think, we can now identify all bacteria in a complex mixture without isolating what will grow, as well as the many microorganisms we have not yet learned to culture or require unusual temperatures, nutrients, and atmospheres! Can you feel the excitement? Hopefully with knowledge of the power of food genomics you will begin to see the true utility of this technology and begin to appreciate its awesome power. Most importantly, you will begin to see how food genomics is a useful tool for the food science professional.
The microbiome field is changing as of this writing and moving toward using a technique known as whole shotgun metagenome (WSM) analysis in which all of the DNA in a sample is sequenced and not just bacterial, fungal, or specific genes; i.e., a metagenome approach vs. a targeted approach to determining the microbiome of a sample.8,9 The whole genome shotgun approach is also a powerful tool not only for creating food microbiomes, but can help in the identification of the plant and animal species used as ingredients in foods. WSM requires relatively advanced and sophisticated bioinformatics tools and at the same time sequencing chemistry is advancing, so is bioinformatics. For example, there is an online tool suite known as NEPHELE, which offers publically available online programs, software, and data handling capacity for sequence analysis.10,11
So here we are with some brand new shiny tools in the kit. Now the question is, how can the food safety professional begin to use these tools? More to the point is to understand when food genomic data is called for. The first step is to grasp some of the terminology and basic processes. Table 1 lists a few starter terms to become familiar with as well as some web resources that might be helpful to you in understanding these immensely powerful tools.12,13
Table 1. Starter Terms in Food Genomics
Annotated Whole Bacterial Genome
High-quality, low-error, gap-free DNA sequence of an entire genome of an organism, in this case, an isolated bacterium, indicating genes and their locations. This can be considered a complete road map of an organism’s genetic makeup as expressed in the nucleotides Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine (ATCG’s). Can be referred to as WGS or Whole Genome Sequencing.
Bioinformatics
The science of managing and analyzing biological data using advanced computing techniques. Especially important in analyzing genomic research data.
Metagenomes or Whole Shotgun Sequencing
Sequences of Genetic material recovered directly from food, animal, plant, or environmental samples with no foreknowledge of the source of living materials therein. For instance, the metagenome of a yogurt sample will harbor DNA sequences characteristic of starter culture bacteria and bovine DNA (assuming it is bovine milk yogurt). This is another approach to obtaining a microbiome.6
Microbiome
A community of microorganisms that inhabit a particular environment or sample. For example, a plant microbiome includes all the microorganisms that colonize a plant’s surfaces and internal passages. This can be a Targeted (Amplicon Sequencing Based) or a Metagenome (Whole Shotgun Metagenome based) microbiome.6
Microbiomics
The process of determining a microbiome.
Microbiota
The ecological community of commensal, symbiotic, and pathogenic microorganisms that literally share a space or are within a sample. Formerly the term ‘microflora’ was used, but this term is waning in usage.14
High throughput automated sequencing of nucleic acids DNA or RNA.
Finally, in the reference section we have tried to provide you with some useful online reference sources. The U.S. Department of Energy has perhaps the most intuitive, user-friendly and informative sites we have encountered as of late (“Genome Glossary,” 2016). The same source also published a talking glossary (“Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms,” 2016). The reader should be advised that genomic terminology and nomenclature is still not fully mature. In fact, the number of vague meanings, cross references, and acronyms can sometimes be frustrating; but fear not, as one reads and discusses the terms, they will become clearer. As a start we recommend downloading a helpful reference that follows.15 There are many other sites you will locate by performing a single web-search. If you would like to share your favorite genomics sites, please drop a line to either author and we will try to compile them into a single electronic document.
We hope this first column will find you coming back for more as we explore this burgeoning field and learn how it is being linked to food safety. Look for future articles on specific food applications, methods, and hot topics in food genomics. Goodbye for now.
References
Allard, M. W., Strain, E., Melka, D., Bunning, K., Musser, S. M., Brown, E. W., & Timme, R. (2016). Practical Value of Food Pathogen Traceability through Building a Whole-Genome Sequencing Network and Database. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 54(8), 1975–1983. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00081-16
Zhang, S., Yin, Y., Jones, M. B., Zhang, Z., Deatherage Kaiser, B. L., Dinsmore, B. A., … Deng, X. (2015). Salmonella serotype determination utilizing high-throughput genome sequencing data. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 53(5), 1685–1692. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00323-15
Burall, L. S., Grim, C. J., Mammel, M. K., & Datta, A. R. (2016). Whole Genome Sequence Analysis Using JSpecies Tool Establishes Clonal Relationships between Listeria monocytogenes Strains from Epidemiologically Unrelated Listeriosis Outbreaks. PloS One, 11(3), e0150797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150797
Chen, Y., Burall, L. S., Luo, Y., Timme, R., Melka, D., Muruvanda, T., Brown, E. W. (2016). Isolation, enumeration and whole genome sequencing of Listeria monocytogenes in stone fruits linked to a multistate outbreak. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01486-16
Bokulich, N. A., Lewis, Z. T., Boundy-Mills, K., & Mills, D. A. (2016). A new perspective on microbial landscapes within food production. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 37, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2015.12.008
Bokulich, N. A., & Mills, D. A. (2012). Next-generation approaches to the microbial ecology of food fermentations. BMB Reports, 45(7), 377–389.
Zarraonaindia, I., Owens, S. M., Weisenhorn, P., West, K., Hampton-Marcell, J., Lax, S., … Gilbert, J. A. (2015). The soil microbiome influences grapevine-associated microbiota. mBio, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02527-14
Microbial Foods – The Science Of Fermented Foods. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://microbialfoods.org/
Ranjan, R., Rani, A., Metwally, A., McGee, H. S., & Perkins, D. L. (2016). Analysis of the microbiome: Advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 469(4), 967–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.12.083
Colosimo, M. E., Peterson, M. W., Mardis, S., & Hirschman, L. (2011). Nephele: genotyping via complete composition vectors and MapReduce. Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 6, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0473-6-13
The final part of the Food Safety Tech series FSMA IQ Test is here. But first, take a look at the results of Part V. If you haven’t yet taken Part V, click here. Result of Part VI will be posted next week.
CCPs previously established under HACCP or previous hazard analysis may be a preventive control under FSMA. TRUE
95% answered correctly
You must document all records to be included in records review under FSMA. TRUE
89% answered correctly
Product testing for pathogen or indicator organism is not addressed under FSMA verification and reevaluation. FALSE
79% answered correctly
Environmental monitoring for an environmental pathogen or indicator is always required under FSMA verification and reevaluation. FALSE
Responses here were nearly split: 51% answered correctly
Under FSMA, you must conduct reanalysis of cGMPs at least every three years. FALSE
Only 21% answered correctly
You must document justification of records not required by a food safety plan in a food operation under FSMA. TRUE
Don’t miss the Listeria Detection & Control Workshop at the 2016 Food Safety Consortium | December 7–8 | Schaumburg, IL | Learn MoreFDA has issued a consumer alert following the recall of Sabra Dipping Company’s hummus products. The agency began an inspection of Sabra’s manufacturing facility in Virginia on October 31, collecting nine environmental samples that test positive for Listeria monocytogenes; FDA collected 18 additional environmental samples near food handling equipment on November 18, which tested positive for Lm. It’s also possible that the strain of Lm found in the facility is persistent in the company’s production environment, according to FDA.
“One of the strains of Listeria monocytogenes found during the recent inspection matches a strain found in a retail product sample collected in 2015, indicating this strain of Listeria monocytogenes may be persistent in the production environment.” – FDA
Sabra initiated a voluntary recall of certain hummus products distributed in the United States and Canada with “Best Before” dates on or before January 23, 2017. “Subsequent to the inspection conducted with the FDA, we implemented a thorough and extensive factory-wide cleaning and sanitation procedure, and beyond that, we continue to work very closely with internal and external food safety experts to identify any additional steps we can take to even further enhance our efforts,” according to a Sabra press release.
Consumers think they’re more likely to get a foodborne illness from food they consume at a restaurant versus food they prepare at home, and they’re also more worried about contamination of raw chicken or beef than contaminated raw vegetables. These and other findings were part of an annual survey, conducted by FDA in partnership with FSIS and USDA, to assess and track consumers’ understanding of food safety handling techniques, along with their feelings and behaviors surrounding food safety. The findings can help the FDA determine its education efforts to help improve consumer food safety behaviors.
Nearly 4200 Americans participated in the survey between October 6, 2015 and January 17, 2016. The questions measured food safety behaviors such as handwashing and washing cutting boards; preparing and consuming risk foods; and food thermometer use. Highlighted findings among respondents include:
Rates of consumers owning food thermometers remains constant, but usage has increased for roasts, chicken parts and hamburgers over the past 10 years.
Handwashing rates remain constant or decreased between 2010 and 2016.
New finding: Only 35% of consumers wash their hands after touching handheld phones or tablets while preparing food.
67% wash raw chicken parts before cooking; 68% wash whole chicken or turkeys before cooking. “This practice is not recommended by food safety experts since washing will not destroy pathogens and may increase the risk of contaminating other foods and surfaces,” according to FDA.
65% of respondents had not heard of mechanically tenderized beef (Labeling required as of May 2016).
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.
