Tag Archives: food safety

Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B
Retail Food Safety Forum

World Health Day Shines Spotlight on Food Safety

By Dan Okenu, Ph.D.
No Comments
Dan Okenu, Ph.D., Food Safety Manager, H-E-B

Drawing attention to the fierce urgency to advance overall food safety and reduce the devastating impact of food borne illnesses around the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) dedicated the 2015 World Health Day to Food Safety. To support these efforts, the Laureate International Universities hosted a special webinar as part of its annual activities to mark World Health Day. During the webinar, Constance Shumba, a public health faculty at the University of Roehampton (London) and I explored the potential impact of FSMA on the global food supply with a case study on how the people and government of Uganda are advancing food safety in the sub-Saharan African country.

Globally, more than 2.2 million people, most of whom are children, die of foodborne and waterborne diarrheal diseases annually. In the United States alone, the CDC estimates that 48 million people become ill from food borne diseases each year. About 128,000 of these individuals are hospitalized, resulting in more than 3,000 deaths. The overall annual U.S. economic burden due to food borne illnesses is estimated to cost $77.7 billion.

These grim statistics illustrate the necessity to overhaul the outdated U.S. food safety system. FSMA is the most significant statutory change to both human and animal food safety in more than 70 years (since the passage of the Food Safety & Cosmetic Act of 1938). It is a radical shift from FDA’s previously reactive approach to a more robust, proactive scientific and risk-based prevention-oriented system. When fully implemented in 2016, the most important impact of FSMA will be to ensure that contaminated foods as well as those containing unwholesome or adulterated ingredients never reach retailers and consumers. Interestingly, FSMA may also positively affect the global food supply chain as it drives the improvement of food safety practices around the world, especially in countries that export food and food products to the United States.

Several provisions of FSMA will affect food exporters to the United States both in terms of reshaping their local food safety policies to align with the new law and the resulting improvement in food safety practices. Some of the areas of potential impact include:

  • Foreign Supplier Verification Program
  • Effective Traceability and Recall Program
  • Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Control (HARPC) System
  • Documentation and Record Keeping Inspections
  • Sanitary Transportation Rule for Human and Animal Foods
  • Produce Safety Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.

Notably, regulatory agencies of major U.S. trading partners are in the process of updating their food safety laws to ensure that local food productions remain in compliance with FSMA. Canada, Mexico, China and Australia are among the countries that are proactively working with their U.S. counterparts to ensure compliance and uninterrupted food exports to U.S. markets. Overall, it will be easier for developed economies with fairly robust food safety regulatory policies to upgrade and catch up with the new FSMA requirements.

Developing nations will be the hardest hit, as an extensive overhaul may be required to meet FSMA regulations. In the face of poor infrastructures, these countries may struggle when upgrading their systems to achieve compliance and maintain a certain level of trade relations with the United States, not just in raw materials or unprocessed food and food products, but also in valued-added food exports. Despite these challenges, these countries are motivated to remain trusted U.S. food-trading partners and will most likely improve their food safety policies and practices, thus helping to make the global food supply safer.

Uganda is an example of a developing country that is making serious efforts to improve its food safety policies and programs. The country is working on its Food and Drug Act of 1964 and its subsequent Drug Act of 1993 to develop a modern and unified National Food Safety Law. To make the global food supply safer through FSMA, the United States must collaborate with its trading partners around the world in building and upgrading their food safety systems. This would be beneficial to U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries either in terms of manufacturing their own private food labels or simply in assisting local industries in these countries in growing, processing and packaging food and food products destined for the U.S. market. It would also help these countries upgrade their food safety laws, improve export capabilities, and balance trade with the United States, consequently making food safer for their own citizens.

During the webinar we also emphasized the need to focus on the family kitchen in improving food safety practices around the world, using the five WHO key principles to a safer quality food:

  • Keep clean—engage in proper washing of hands and food contact surfaces
  • Cook food thoroughly to the required temperatures
  • Separate raw and ready-to-eat (RTE) foods to avoid cross-contamination
  • Keep food at safe temperatures to ensure that hot food remains hot and cold food remains cold at all times
  • Use safe water and raw materials to avoid cross-contamination

We all agreed that the culture of food safety must start in the home and at a very early stage in life and from there, spread to our schools, and public and private institutions. Food companies must do all that is necessary to uphold the integrity of the highly profitable food industry by delivering safe quality food to their customers. Overall, the global food supply chain will be made safer with a considerable reduction in food borne illnesses, and chemical or physical adulteration of foods.

The webinar referenced in this column, “From Farm to Fork – A Public Health Perspective”, can be found on the Walden University (Minneapolis) website.

Okenu is also affiliated with Walden University as a contributing professor in public health

Poll: Food Manufacturers Challenged with Limited Resources, FSMA, Staff Training, and Information Overload

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments

In the age of increasingly fewer resources and less time, companies are challenged to effectively train staff and meet ever-changing regulatory requirements, while successfully managing their suppliers and customer expectations.

In its annual Food Safety & Quality Assurance (FSQA) Professional Survey, TraceGains polled professionals in food manufacturing, processing and distribution on their top priorities, challenges and predictions for 2015.  “Quality isn’t suffering, but not having enough resources—which typically means money, leads to non-optimal staffing—does have a negative effect on the workforce,” says Gary Nowacki, CEO of TraceGains. Nowacki tells Food Safety Tech how companies are managing these challenges.

Food Safety Tech: How are companies managing the lack of resources? Is it negatively affecting how they operate from a safety and quality perspective?

Gary Nowacki: People have to work more hours or do more jobs. They often cannot advance in their careers because there is no skill redundancy, and [they] cannot do much of the proactive work they’d rather be performing to help their company excel. This is especially true as the number of audits has increased rather than decreased as has been promised, which command a strong resource commitment from a limited pool.
 
FST: How are firms preparing for the changing regulatory and compliance requirements, especially regarding final FSMA rules?

Nowacki: We’ve seen two approaches prevail: Being extremely proactive now or purposely waiting until the last minute to push off any potential expenses associated with compliance. The lengthy rollout of the Food Safety Modernization Act hasn’t helped spurn companies into action. Considering that food processing and manufacturing is a very low-margin business, it is understandable that many companies wish to have full clarity before committing the required resources. We haven’t found anyone who does not wish to be complying with FSMA—there is great respect for the purpose of the law, and all companies that we have encountered practice food safety first.

Credit: 2015 Annual TraceGains FSQA Professional Survey
Credit: 2015 Annual TraceGains FSQA Professional Survey

 

FST: How is information overload affecting how companies operate? What advice can you offer firms?

Nowacki: Information overload goes hand-in-hand with limited resources. Ever-increasing upstream requirements, be they regulatory or industry driven, command ever-increasing downstream requirements. This, coupled with the fact that most organizations still operate in siloed departments, puts increasing strain on data collection, analysis, and retention requirements. Automation, specifically software-based automation, can help companies accomplish more, but we don’t advocate “with less”.

Further, automation can help break down those department and information silos, as decisions can then be easily made from shared data. One of the things we often sense first is that automation is expected to replace people—that has been very true globally in manufacturing—so there is a great deal of fear or uncertainty involved. Our experience has been that automation helps the limited human resources be more productive and, more importantly, more proactive. Automation helps move people from clerical, error-prone tasks to higher-level and more strategically important tasks, as the overwhelming amounts of data are being handled digitally.

FDA Advises Egg Safety for Easter

No Comments

FDA estimates that 142,000 illnesses each year are caused by consuming eggs contaminated with Salmonella. While there are regulations in place to help prevent contamination of eggs on the farm and during shipping and storage, the most effective way to prevent egg-related illness is by knowing how to buy, store, handle and cook eggs safely.

EggsSafetyMarch2015Fresh eggs must be handled carefully to avoid the possibility of foodborne illness, often called “food poisoning.” Even eggs with clean, uncracked shells may occasionally contain bacteria called Salmonella that can cause an intestinal infection.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that 142,000 illnesses each year are caused by consuming eggs contaminated with Salmonella. FDA has put regulations in place to help prevent contamination of eggs on the farm and during shipping and storage. But consumers play a key role in preventing illness associated with eggs. In fact, the most effective way to prevent egg-related illness is by knowing how to buy, store, handle and cook eggs — or foods that contain them — safely. Follow these safe handling tips to help protect yourself and your family.

What is Salmonella?

Salmonella, the name of a group of bacteria, is the most common cause of food poisoning in the United States. Salmonella germs have been known to cause illness for over 100 years. They were discovered by an American scientist named Salmon, for whom they are named.

Most people infected with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, and vomiting 12 to 72 hours after infection. Symptoms usually last 4 to 7 days and most people get better without treatment. However, in some people, the diarrhea may be so severe that they need to be hospitalized. In these patients, the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the blood stream, and then to other body sites and can cause death unless the person is treated quickly with antibiotics. Certain people are at greater risk for severe illness and include pregnant women, young children, older adults and people with weakened immune systems.

Safe Handling Instructions

To prevent illness from bacteria: keep eggs refrigerated, cook eggs until yolks are firm, and cook foods containing eggs thoroughly. Eggs that have been treated to destroy Salmonella — by in-shell pasteurization, for example — are not required to carry safe handling instructions.

Buy Right

You can help keep eggs safe by making wise buying decisions at the grocery store. Buy eggs only if sold from a refrigerator or refrigerated case. Open the carton and make sure that the eggs are clean and the shells are not cracked. Refrigerate promptly. Store eggs in their original carton and use them within 3 weeks for best quality.

Keep Everything Clean

Cleaning counter before preparing any food, remember that cleanliness is key! Wash hands, utensils, equipment, and work surfaces with hot, soapy water before and after they come in contact with eggs and egg-containing foods.

Cook Thoroughly

Thorough cooking is perhaps the most important step in making sure eggs are safe. Cook eggs until both the yolk and the white are firm. Scrambled eggs should not be runny. Casseroles and other dishes containing eggs should be cooked to 160°F (72°C). Use a food thermometer to be sure. For recipes that call for eggs that are raw or undercooked when the dish is served — Caesar salad dressing and homemade ice cream are two examples — use either shell eggs that have been treated to destroy Salmonella, by pasteurization or another approved method, or pasteurized egg products. Treated shell eggs are available from a growing number of retailers and are clearly labeled, while pasteurized egg products are widely available.

Serve Safely

Bacteria can multiply in temperatures from 40°F (5°C) to 140°F (60°C), so it’s very important to serve foods safely. Serve cooked eggs and egg-containing foods immediately after cooking. For buffet-style serving, hot egg dishes should be kept hot, and cold egg dishes kept cold. Eggs and egg dishes, such as quiches or soufflés, may be refrigerated for serving later but should be thoroughly reheated to 165°F (74°C) before serving. Cooked eggs, including hard-boiled eggs, and egg-containing foods, should not sit out for more than 2 hours. Within 2 hours either reheat or refrigerate.

Store Properly

Use hard-cooked eggs (in the shell or peeled) within 1 week after cooking. Use frozen eggs within 1 year. Eggs should not be frozen in their shells. To freeze whole eggs, beat yolks and whites together. Egg whites can also be frozen by themselves. Refrigerate leftover cooked egg dishes and use within 3 to 4 days. When refrigerating a large amount of a hot eggcontaining leftover, divide it into several shallow containers so it will cool quickly.

On The Road

Cooked eggs for a picnic should be packed in an insulated cooler with enough ice or frozen gel packs to keep them cold. Don’t put the cooler in the trunk — carry it in the air-conditioned passenger compartment of the car. If taking cooked eggs to work or school, pack them with a small frozen gel pack or a frozen juice box.

Source: FDA.gov

Cities Using Social Media to Police Restaurants

No Comments

The U.S. is catching on, using Yelp to check health inspection scores for eateries in San Francisco, Louisville, Kentucky, and several other communities.

Yelp-barfblogWhile cities like Guelph, Ontario, are being dragged into the age of public disclosure, countries like Singapore have been training and using restaurant patrons as gumshoes for a decade to help public health types identify possible infractions through the use of cell phones (with nifty cameras).

The U.S. is slowly catching on, reports The Bulletin in Oregon, using Yelp to check health inspection scores for eateries in San Francisco, Louisville, Kentucky, and several other communities.

Local governments increasingly are turning to social media to alert the public to health violations and to nudge establishments into cleaning up their acts. A few cities are even mining users’ comments to track foodborne illnesses or predict which establishments are likely to have sanitation problems.

“For consumers, posting inspection information on Yelp is a good thing because they’re able to make better, informed decisions about where to eat,” said Michael Luca, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School who specializes in the economics of online businesses. “It also holds restaurants more accountable about cleanliness.”

In recent years, dozens of city and county health departments have been posting restaurant inspection results on government websites to share with the public. Turning to Yelp or other social media, or using crowd-sourced information to increase public awareness, is the next logical step, some officials say.

“Yelp is a window into the restaurant. The restaurateurs don’t want a bad (health) score on Yelp. They’ll be more attentive about getting the restaurants cleaned up and safer,” said Rajiv Bhatia, former environmental health director for the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

“It’s also valuable because it allows the public to see the workings of a government agency, and puts some pressure on the agency to do its job,” said Bhatia, a physician who is now a public health consultant.

The National Restaurant Association, the industry’s trade group, said that while it supports transparency and consumers’ access to information, it worries that because inspection standards differ from city to city, Yelp users might not be familiar with rating terminology and therefore could draw incorrect conclusions.

David Matthews, the association’s general counsel, also said the timing of postings is crucial because restaurants often correct findings and generate different ratings after a re-inspection.

Luther Lowe, Yelp’s director of public policy said putting health scores and inspection results in an accessible place where consumers already are searching for restaurant information makes a lot more sense than “relying on those clunky (health department) dot-gov websites.”

This article originally appeared in barfblog.com. 

About 170,000 pounds of Beef Recalled in Chicago

No Comments

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.

Kraft Recalls Mac & Cheese Due to Possible Metal Pieces

No Comments

The company is voluntarily recalling approximately 242,000 cases of select code dates and manufacturing codes of the Original flavor of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Dinner – due to the possibility that some boxes may contain small pieces of metal.

Kraft Foods Group is voluntarily recalling approximately 242,000 cases of select code dates and manufacturing codes of the Original flavor of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Dinner – due to the possibility that some boxes may contain small pieces of metal.

Approximately 6.5 million boxes of original flavor Kraft Macaroni & Cheese are involved in the recall.

KraftMac-CheeseThe recalled product is limited to the 7.25-oz. size of the Original flavor of boxed dinner with the “Best When Used By” dates of September 18, 2015 through October 11, 2015, with the code “C2” directly below the date on each individual box. The “C2” refers to a specific production line on which the affected product was made.

Some of these products have also been packed in multi-pack units that have a range of different code dates and manufacturing codes on the external packaging (box or shrink-wrap), depending on the package configuration (see table).

Recalled product was shipped to customers in the U.S. and several other countries, excluding Canada. The affected dates of this product were sold in only these four configurations:

  • 7.25 oz. box, Original flavor
  • 3-pack box of those 7.25 oz. boxes Original flavor
  • 4-pack shrink-wrap of those 7.25 oz. boxes, Original flavor
  • 5-pack shrink-wrap of those 7.25 oz. boxes, Original flavor

No other sizes, varieties or pasta shapes and no other packaging configurations are included in this recall. And no products with manufacturing codes other than “C2” below the code date on the individual box are included in this recall.

Kraft has received eight consumer contacts about this product from the impacted line within this range of code dates and no injuries have been reported. The recalled product was shipped by Kraft to customers nationwide in the U.S. The product was also distributed to Puerto Rico and some Caribbean and South American countries — but not to Canada.

Consumers who purchased this product should not eat it. They should return it to the store where purchased for an exchange or full refund. Consumers also can contact Kraft Foods Consumer Relations at 1-800-816-9432 between 9 am and 6 pm (Eastern) for a full refund. 

Click here for more information.

Millennials Are Changing the Food Industry

By Chelsey Davis
No Comments

Millennials are definitely changing the landscape of the food industry. What do they care about when it comes to food, and what does this mean for food manufacturers?

TraceGains_Millennials1

We’ve all heard the latest trends regarding that hard-to-reach audience we’ve dubbed the Millennials (those born roughly between the years 1980 and the early 2000s). And with so many how-to articles out there, it’s hard to really understand who these folks are and what they want. Here are just a few fun facts about this generation: 50 percent consider themselves politically unaffiliated, they have the highest average number of Facebook friends, 55 percent have posted a selfie or two to social media sites, and there are roughly 80 million of them. This makes Millennials the biggest generation thus far. And one thing is for certain, based on research, they are definitely changing the landscape of the food industry. So what do Millennials care about when it comes to food?

Millennials care about quality and sustainability

According to a 2014 study by the International Food Council (IFC), Millennials have the highest level of awareness out of any age group when it comes to food sustainability, and they are willing to pay more for it. And when it comes to quality vs. price, Millennials are more apt to be loyal to a brand deemed to have quality products as opposed to a brand that has a better price point.

Quality versus price for Millennials (Image courtesy of Bushiness Insider via Goldman Sachs)
Quality versus price for Millennials (Image courtesy of Business Insider via Goldman Sachs)

Take McDonald’s for example. In August of 2013, the fast-food chain reported a 13 percent decline in consumption for people between the ages of 19-21 since 2011. And while Millennials are still dinning out, they are opting for franchises like Chipotle and Five Guys. Why? These chains pride themselves on using local producers and sustainable food items, which makes paying that extra $2.00 for guacamole not so bad to this generation.

Additionally, Millennials are more apt to choose products that are socially responsible and produce lower carbon footprints. For example, Millennials are now paying attention to how much energy, water and effort it takes to grow, manufacture and transport food, including the packaging process. And as this environmentally friendly generation matures and moves into prime spending age, manufacturers will need to evolve the packaging of food products to ensure they are created with eco-friendly and recyclable materials if they wish to appeal to these folks.

Millennials care about their health

This generation, as research states, is more aware of their health than any other generation thus far, especially when it comes to what goes into their bodies. Locally grown, cage-free, all-natural, organic—these are all terms Millennials tend to gravitate towards when making food choices. As a result, organic coffee shops are popping up everywhere, farm-to-table restaurants are all the rage, and even private label brands are seeing increases in sales, with Millennials opting for those over national brands due to the perception that these labels are more innovative.

Millennials are also reading labels and are more aware of what the items on the labels mean—they understand the ingredients and what goes into their food more so than their parents and grandparents. As a result, we’re seeing an increase in natural and organic claims as we navigate through the grocery aisles.

Graphic showing wellness stats for Millennials (Image courtesy of Bushiness Insider via Goldman Sachs)
Graphic showing wellness stats for Millennials
(Image courtesy of Bushiness Insider via Goldman Sachs)

What this means for food manufacturers

Food manufacturers have an interesting challenge ahead, but also a great opportunity. The ones that will ultimately gain popularity among Millennials will be those that are willing to innovate while staying authentic. Millennials not only value the transparency of brands, they are also aware of shortcomings when it comes to unsubstantiated claims. Food manufacturers must now walk the line between making all-natural and sustainable product claims, and being 100 percent truthful in their statements. When it comes down to it, Millennials will do the research, read the labels and uncover the truth.

So how do you appeal to Millennials, while also mitigating the risks when it comes to labeling your product natural, organic or GMO-free? To answer tough questions like this, TraceGains got the inside scoop from Attorney Antonio Gallegos, who advises on compliance with regulations administered by the FDA, FTC, USDA and similar state-level agencies, and co-produced a guidance report. Use this free Natural Labeling Guidance Report to help you make informed decisions in the future for your products. Do you have additional tips for reaching Millennials? Leave a comment below and let us know!

Getting a Handle on Cleanliness

No Comments

Hand hygiene is a crucial aspect of food production and processing. How can food companies reduce the risks associated with human error in hand hygiene?

Ensuring that employees maintain a proactive and responsible attitude to hand cleanliness is worth a great deal to companies in food processing and production. This can be in regards to financial aspects- a contamination of food materials could cripple a company financially, as well as the damage to reputation that may result from poor cleanliness. In addition poor hand hygiene is a significant factor in individual illness; with employee illness hampering productivity. The costs associated with employee illness and the absences associated with such are also surprisingly high. While the vast majority of food production companies have in place a proactive approach to hand hygiene, ensuring employees themselves actually abide by hand hygiene practices can be more difficult.

CDCKeepCalm_WashyouhandsYou’d be forgiven for thinking that workers handling food would be proactive in terms of ensuring hand hygiene, deeming hand washing initiatives and education campaigns unnecessary. Yet research from the Environmental Health Specialists Network (ESH-Net), the collaborative forum of environmental health specialists associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), questions whether sufficient hand hygiene compliance is as widespread as one may have thought. ESH-Net found in one study that 12 percent of food workers had been into work despite suffering from a sickness bug and/or diarrhea1. Illnesses such as these can spread through a working environment very quickly and one sick employee can spiral into many more ill workers in a short period of time.

Other studies focusing on the economic cost of workplace absence due to sickness in the United Kingdom demonstrate the financial issues associated with avoidable illnesses. A report carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in conjunction with Simplyhealth found that the average cost of employee absence is £673 per employee, per year, with two-thirds of cases involving short-term (fewer than 7 day) absences2. The British Health and Safety Executive (HSE) put the annual cost of employee illness at more than £12billion3.

The potential for the spread of infection from an ill employee coming into work is high. It is also exacerbated by the fact that a large minority of workers do not practice adequate hand hygiene. The ESH-Net found that the average worker in facilities where food is handled will carry out an activity which would require hand washing before and after nine times an hour. The same ESH-Net report discovered that only 27 percent of workers fulfilled their hand hygiene obligations in carrying out these activities. It is also true that in many cases the quality of hand washing is insufficient and not enough to properly kill germs4. The guidelines for proper hand washing recommend the use of hot water and soap and for the whole process to take at least 20 to 25 seconds. One recommendation is that a sufficient hand washing session should take the same amount of time as singing the Happy Birthday song twice. Despite this it is clear that many people do not wash their hands for anywhere near as long as these guidelines. A report from Michigan State University found the average time spent washing hands was barely 6 seconds5.

Another piece of research suggested that 95 percent of people do not wash their hands to an adequate standard6. In addition to insufficient time spent washing hands, the efficacy of hand washing techniques employed by many people can be questionable. The Michigan State University report detailed how more than a third of people did not use soap when washing their hands, with 1 in 10 not washing their hands at all.

Although these data outline public hand hygiene practices, not specifically the practices of food workers, the findings still paint a worrying picture of ignorance of the dangers of the spread of germs or a lack of concern afforded to hand hygiene. This is especially clear when we consider how data indicating that in the food industry 89 percent of instances where workers were the source of food contamination, such contamination originated from the spread of germs directly from the hands of workers to the food itself.7  

Feb2015_FoodHandleMany food facilities do attempt to tackle the issue of hand hygiene amongst its workforce, with measures including hand washing ‘stations’ situated before entrances to production areas. Other measures include minimising direct hand contact with raw food by using utensils and wearing disposable gloves. However the latter measure, disposable gloves, can cause more problems than it solves with people forgetting that some germs can be spread on the gloves just the same as on bare hands. The frequency to which hands should be cleaned, and the number of different situations that warrant hand washing can also be underestimated. Workers should clean their hands whenever it is required, not merely at regular intervals.

The installation of full-compliance, non-optional hand hygiene measures has been a success for many food companies. The most significant benefit of products which provide this service is clear- they cannot be missed or bypassed, therefore helping to ensure far greater levels of hand hygiene.

Some criticize hand sanitizers, arguing that it discourages thorough hand washing. It may be argued that points such as these misunderstand the role hand sanitizers play in hand hygiene. A proactive and effective approach to hand hygiene should combine comprehensive hand washing with sanitizing. This is why hand sanitizing products in places such as corridors can be useful as they act as a clean barrier in places where hand washing is not feasible. Hand sanitizers are most effective as an addition to hand washing, and should never be regarded as a stand-alone alternative. Using sanitizers alone is insufficient but in conjunction with thorough hand washing, it makes for is an effective hand hygiene regimen. Full-compliance products are already available. Their specific function varies from specialist hygienic door handles which dispense gel upon grip, to badges and other technology that reminds workers to wash their hands and notes when they do not, as well as simple products such as specialist self-cleaning sticker material.

Any company that includes aspects of work where food is handled face a difficult task in ensuring proper hand hygiene. Human error on the part of the worker, such as forgetting to wash hands before entering sensitive areas, or failing to wash hands to an adequate standard can result in serious consequences. This is why full-compliance products are becoming far more popular. To continue to make progress in fighting contamination in the food industry there must be a culture change amongst hygiene managers in addition to food workers as a whole towards ensuring, rather than merely encouraging hand hygiene. When hand hygiene is made compulsory the risks of human error become far less significant.

References:

  1. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/ehsnet/plain_language/food-workers-working-when-sick.pdf
  2. CIPD Absence Management Report 2011, http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/absence-management-2011.aspx
  3. hse.gov.uk June 2011
  4. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/ehsnet/plain_language/food-worker-handwashing-food-preparation.pdf
  5. http://msutoday.msu.edu/_/pdf/assets/2013/hand-washing-study-1.pdf http://www.wgtacc.com/wash-hands-after-bathroom.html
  6. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/ehsnet/plain_language/food-worker-handwashing-food-preparation.pdf

Top 3 Things to Know about President Obama’s FY 2016 Food Safety Budget Proposal

By Miranda Peguese
No Comments

Knowing the government’s increased focus on food safety means companies must continually be audit ready with program sustainability as a focus for management and employees alike. Commitment to food safety and a sound preparation plan is key for facilities as they navigate through the increasing food safety regulatory oversight.

Food safety funding has been a major focal point for the FY 2016 budget proposed by President Obama. Primarily due in support of the fact that all major Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rules are scheduled to take effect by the end of FY 2016, the increased focus will impact each of the agencies governing food safety within the US and all entities which fall under their jurisdiction.

Here are three things to know about the proposed food safety funding allocation for FY 2016:

1. There will be a sizeable increase in the allocation of food safety funding.

President Obama’s $3.99 trillion FY 2016 budget proposal allocates $1.6 billion for food safety, a significant increase in food safety funding over previous years. This would include increases of $301 million for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support new measures under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), resulting in a $109 million increase over the previous year as well as an additional $2.1 million increase to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) over FY 2015’s $48 million allocation going towards food safety.

USDA budget requests would decrease slightly for FY 2016, requesting $1.012 billion vs. $1.016 billion for the previous year’s budget as a result of program related cost savings and correlated efficiencies and expects that a portion of the $2.9 billion for agricultural research and extension activities would support additional food safety requirements set forth by FSMA.

2. The proposed increase in food safety funds would include a prioritized food safety spending plan.

The increases to the allocated funding for food safety do not come without guidance. The funding increase includes a detailed plan for spending to include the following allocation:

  • $32 million for Nation Integrated Food Safety System
  • $25.5 million for New Import Safety Systems
  • $25 million for Inspection Modernization Training
  • $11.5 million for Industry Education and Technical Assistance
  • $4.5 million for Risk Analytics and Evaluation
  • $4 million for Technical Staffing and Guidance Development

The top three funding allocations noted are for integration, import, and inspection. These allotments directly reflect the directives set forth in FSMA

3. The plan also includes a proposed single food safety regulatory entity.

In addition to the increase in funding, the new plan outlined by President Obama also asks for Congress to combine several programs overseeing US food safety into a single agency under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Advocates of the plan state that the combination would provide “focused, centralized leadership, a primary voice on food safety standards and compliance with those standards, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability”, citing the current food safety system as being fragmented and outdated. Currently, a total of 12 agencies enforce 30 different laws. An alternate proposal has also been put forth by two members of congress which would suggest the formation of a new food safety agency independent of HHS.

How does this affect your facility? Knowing the government’s increased focus on food safety means companies must continually be audit ready with program sustainability as a focus for management and employees alike. Commitment to food safety and a sound preparation plan is key for facilities as they navigate through the increasing food safety regulatory oversight.

To learn more about the food safety allocations within the proposed FY 2016 budget, visit http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm432576.htm and http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=BUDGET.

U.S. Needs to Rework its “Byzantine Food Safety System”

No Comments

If anything is more complicated than our food, it’s our government’s system for checking its safety, describes an LA Times editorial, supporting the recent proposal to create a single, unified Food Safety Administration.

The job of keeping our food wholesome has become more difficult as food itself has become more complicated, as more processed foods include ingredients from many sources, making it hard to trace the origin of pathogens. For instance, a package of ground beef today is no longer put together by a butcher pushing a single hunk of meat through a grinder, but includes trimmings from many cattle and multiple slaughterhouses. Thus, even a small quantity of meat contaminated with E. coli has the potential to taint tremendous amounts of hamburger meat sent out across the country, describes an editorial in the LA Times.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, food poisoning sickens more than 80 million people a year in this country, killing 5,000, sending 325,000 to the hospital and, according to a 2012 study in the Journal of Food Protection, costing $14 billion — which doesn’t take into account the cost of lawsuits and recalls.

The LA Times article criticizes the “byzantine system” for ensuring food safety: “At least 15 agencies are involved, but sorting out the responsibilities of just the two main ones — the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture — is hard enough,” it describes, citing examples of frozen pizza (where the cheese is inspected by the USDA, while other ingredients and toppings by FDA), and eggs (USDA while responsible for eggs out of the shell — and for grading eggs in the shell for shape and uniformity, don’t fully take into account conditions of the egg product facilities).

Recently, based on recommendations, President Obama has proposed a unified Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services, and the article describes this as a smarter, more efficient and effective way to protect American consumers.